Get rid of the "no tights" rule!

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by tomegun

Nobody say to ask to see anything private. If they are sleeves, seeing the top of them is not a horrible thing like you make it out to be.

It's called hyperbole, a word that I learned in Mr. Chieffo's eight grade English class.

I'm not asking to see anything more than I can see without the player, boy, or girl, moving any part of the shorts up, or down. If I think that they are tights, I'm simply asking, "Are those tights?". If the player says, "No, they're just sleeves.", then I'm believing him, or her. Once the coach tells us, in our pregame, that the players are legally equipped, then that's where it ends for me. It's now a done deal. Play on. However, when in Rome, check your local listings

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by tomegun

I do feel the same as others: I wouldn't be sad at all if we didn't have to look for this stuff. However, since we do (and my military career makes me somewhat of a rule follower) I look for it.

Thank you for putting yourself in harm's way in service to our country.

No military background for me, but I'm as much of a rule follower as anybody, which is why I would like the NFHS to allow tights, maybe with some color restrictions, which would not only make my job easier, but would allow me, as a rule follower, to sleep at night.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by tomegun

I just noticed that you posted something similar in another thread in response to the questions I ask.

Maybe it was this (below), and, like you, a lot of Forum members disagreed with me.

I'm not asking players to remove tape from their earlobes to check for earrings.

And, I'm not asking players to hitch up their shorts to check for tights.

Maybe I'm naive, or too trusting, but if a player, and his coach, tell me that they're legally equipped, then that's enough for me. I don't like accusing people of being liars, unless I have a pretty darn good reason to so so.

Again, when in Rome, check your local listings.

[Kelvin green]

If they are wearing tape on their ears, I always ask.

It is normally pretty obvious what they are trying to do. If you let them wear jewelry whether it is under tape or not it is a disregard for safety rules...

Now depending on the jurisdiction, there are two different standards of liability. Allowing jewelry like this may or may not be grossly negligent but it probably meets ordinary negligence... I don't plan on finding out...


Now for the disclaimer

this is for general information only. Nothing in this information should be construed as creating an attorney-client relationship nor shall any of this information be construed as providing legal advice. Laws change over time and differ from state to state. These answers are based on California Law.Applicability of the legal principles discussed may differ substantially in individual situations. You should not act upon the information presented herein without consulting an attorney about your particular situation. No attorney-client relationship is established.

[twocentsworth]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Since this is basically a farce and we are seeing so many players wearing tights now, let's just cease with the song and dance that they are "medical," which is BS and everyone knows it, and entirely get rid of the rule prohibiting the wearing of them at both the NCAA and NFHS levels.

Not for nothing, Nevada...but how do you know "for sure" that those are tights?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

Not for nothing, Nevada...but how do you know "for sure" that those are tights?

My sentiments exactly. I have seen players lift these things and they were not tights, they were leg sleeves. I have addressed it with coaches and let them tell me what they are. Then I let them know, they might want to be prepared for when someone wants to see them to make sure they are not tights.

That being said I think the NF needs to stop trying to regulate every uniform issue. As long as they are not dangerous or get some advantage from the usage, why would they care? This was like 15 years ago when they told us not to have socks with logos on them and it was so dumb because kids pick their own socks. Kids buy these items, why do we care if they do not match perfectly to the uniform?

Peace

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This was like 15 years ago when they told us not to have socks with logos on them and it was so dumb because kids pick their own socks.

The NCAA needs to get this one out of the rule books, too. Every year in February my assignor sends out a reminder to enforce the sock rule (i.e., make the kids roll them down if they have two logos on them) because the NCAAs are coming up and it's going to be taken care of during the tournament. Like two manufacturer's logos on each sock is really too much advertising?

[Adam]

As far as I'm concerned, they should just stipulate that all sleeves need to fit the same requirements as undershirts. Match the predominant uniform color. Short of that, make them match the color requirements of headbands and wristbands. A player wearing a blue jersey and white shooting sleeves creates just a slight advantage in traffic sometimes against a team in white.

Other than that, whether they're tights, socks, or separated sleeves, I'd rather not care.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

Not for nothing, Nevada...but how do you know "for sure" that those are tights?

He doesn't, so he would simply ask her to lift up the bottom of her shorts, or ask her to pull down the top of her shorts, so that he can take a real close up look to see if they are really tights, or just sleeves. Maybe he'll take photos for proof? After Delle Donne's boyfriend, or father, or brother, or all three, come out of the stands to beat the crap out of Nevadaref, all of us can take up a collection to help Nevadaref post bail for his sexual voyeurism charge.