More fashion police

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Tattoos. As long as they weren't offensive.

I remember that...is there different criteria now?...because I'm still going with the offensive deal. BTW...haven't had one yet.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

I remember that...is there different criteria now?...because I'm still going with the offensive deal. Haven't had one yet.

I barely remember the interpretation. I'm sure that Nevadaref will be moseying along shortly to give us the correct citation.

[BillyMac]

1996-97 NFHS Points of Emphasis: Permanent tattoos pose problems if they are objectionable for one reason or another. School administrators and/or coaches have an obligation to have objectionable markings of a permanent type covered. It is not in the best interest of the game to have officials placed in a position where from game to game they must rule on what is objectionable. Obviously, officials can and will make these decisions when outright vulgarity or obscenity is involved or when such markings violate sportsmanship and/or taunting or baiting regulations.

Offensive was never part of the point of emphasis. Only school administrators and/or coaches had too deal with objectionable tattoos. Officials were only asked to deal with vulgar, or obscene tattoos, and tattoos that violated sportsmanship and/or taunting or baiting regulations.