More fashion police

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I only skimmed the ad quickly, but I note it says "game type situations" (not "games") and it doesn't mention any rules code (e.g., NFHS)

From the ad:

The other shooting aid products on the market today are designed to help basketball players shoot better during training times, but none of these can be worn in game type situations.



From the email that linked me to the ad:

The Shooting Aid You Can Actually Wear In Game

DotShot Basketball Shooting Aid is a training aid that combines a compression sleeve with visual reference points (the Dots) to help basketball players improve your shooting. Watch video here.

[Welpe]

My other thought, maybe they aren't aware of the rule change this year.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by CoachP

From the ad:

The other shooting aid products on the market today are designed to help basketball players shoot better during training times, but none of these can be worn in game type situations.



From the email that linked me to the ad:

The Shooting Aid You Can Actually Wear In Game

DotShot Basketball Shooting Aid is a training aid that combines a compression sleeve with visual reference points (the Dots) to help basketball players improve your shooting. Watch video here.

Maybe they're the same folks who manufacture uniforms for Illinois high school teams.

[Camron Rust]

Seems like it would be a lot cheaper for a kid to put some does on his/her arm with a sharpie...and that would be legal too.

[VaTerp]

Funny story.

I'm working a BF game last week and just before tip off I bring White32 and White12 together, one is wearing a black sleeve the other white, and explain that one of them will have to remove it.

White12 says, "no problem I have a black one too, runs to the sideline, and exchanges it in about 2 seconds."

I'm thinking, "Unbelievable, this little $#*! has two sleeves and probably can't play a lick."

Same kid hits a NBA range 3 on the first possession of the game and then 3 other 3s in the first quarter as they blew out the other team. My partner and I had a good laugh to ourselves as we were both thinking the same thing.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Seems like it would be a lot cheaper for a kid to put some dots on his/her arm with a sharpie, and that would be legal too.

Tattoos. As long as they weren't offensive.

[grunewar]

Working a Rec Game this weekend.

Captains come out for thier meeting and one has a sleeve.

Me, "Son, are you wearing that for a medical reason?"

Him, "Well, I hurt my elbow earlier in the year."

"Me, "ok."

Him, "But, I'm better now." and he takes it off

Me.....

[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 grunewar

One has a sleeve.

Me: "I'm going to be asking you a question in a few seconds, and no matter what I ask, I want you to answer yes."

Me: Is that sleeve that you're wearing being worn for a medical reason?"

Player: "No".

Coach later tells me that the kid is just a really good kid, and just can't tell a lie. He also tells me that the kid's report card isn't very good.

[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.

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Me: "I'm going to be asking you a question in a few seconds, and no matter what I ask, I want you to answer yes."

Me: Is that sleeve that you're wearing being worn for a medical reason?"

Player: "No".

Coach later tells me that the kid is just a really good kid, and just can't tell a lie. He also tells me that the kid's report card isn't very good.

What is the point of doing that? If you're going to do that why would you even bother asking him anything?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Cobra

What is the point of doing that? If you're going to do that why would you even bother asking him anything?

Agreed. I just ask, once, simply. No need to badger the witness.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Tattoos. As long as they weren't offensive.

Not so much of a stretch. Many people have tattoos of something written in an Asian language. Dots are a language, too.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Cobra

What is the point of doing that? If you're going to do that why would you even bother asking him anything?

I used this in a middle school game a few years ago when the rule first came under scrutiny. I thought that it would be an easy way to check. For obvious reasons, first time, and last time, that I did this. By the way, he eventually figured out how to answer the loaded question, and he played with it on.

Now we don't even ask. We just assume that if they're wearing it, that it's for medical reasons.

Anybody remember when some officials used to ask, in the captains meeting (just captains, no coaches, back then), if any players were wearing contact lenses?