2014 Unannounced Changes? (e.g. Casebook 4.14.1 Sit. D)

[BayStateRef]

Ugh. Just wish they left this alone.

School colors are white and green. Girls want to wear green headbands at home, with their white uniforms and green trim. Last year's ruling: legal (any single school color.) Before 2010-11: illegal (had to match the color of the torso of the shirt). The girls hated it, in part because different officials ignored the "illegal" headbands.

Four years this worked just fine. I would love to hear the back story on this: what happened that prompted the reversion to the old rule?

And now the case book contradicts the language of the rule? Double ugh. And no...I don't have my new rules book yet.

[Freddy]

Hi (state association director),
These "fashion police" changes by NFHS are getting out of hand. There are errors this year, and what worked great last year for the first time is being retracted again this year.
Any chance the (state association) can be convinced to waive the change the NFHS made once again to the color restriction regarding optional adornments? Right when they got basketball rule 3-5-3 and 3-5-4 to a point that it was easily enforcible (white, black, beige, or a single solid school color for arm-sleeves and leg-sleeves and for headbands and wristbands). No problem with that last year whatsoever. The players finally had a rule they could live with . . . and they did. Easy for everyone. And now this year they change "single solid school color" to "predominant color of the uniform."
This "fashion police" retraction to how it was previous years is not only borderline senseless, given the hesitancy of many officials not to mess with these rules at all, it will become a chaotic, unenforced, inconsistently enforced situation like it was two years ago and prior. What in the world precipitated this change? Were there rampant problems with last year's rule or something?
Any chance the (state association) can waive this new NFHS change and revert to how these two rules were last season when they worked just great?
Also, the unintended contradiction between 3-5-4a and supporting casebook 3.5.4 needs to be corrected.
Also, the phrase in 3-5-3a, "Anything worn on the arm and/or leg is a sleeve" is not correct, given 3-5-4 obviously gives separate rules for wristbands and headbands.

Please consider the headache trainers are gonna have with these errors and seemingly unnecessary changes and waive these NFHS changes for our state this and following years.

Looking forward to your seasoned and directive response.

[OKREF]

Why is this so hard? The "anything worn on arms and legs is a sleeve" pertains to the long sleeves with the pads in them, or the elbow shooting sleeves. They removed the medical permission part and lumped all into a sleeve. Nothing really has changed with the headbands and wristbands, except predominant has replaced single school color.

If a team's colors are blue, red, and yellow, and they're wearing blue tops, gotta be black, white, beige, or blue. That's it. Headbands/ wristbands must match, sleeves and legs must match, but the bands and sleeves don't have to match. In the above scenario, the HB/WB can be white and the sleeves can be black.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Why is this so hard?

Because...
1. Former "single solid school color" was easy for teams to comply with and for officials to enforce and there was never a problem with it, and
2. New "predominant color of the jersey", instead, being more restrictive, means something senseless to have to educate officials on, something non-essential to the game that will need to be enforced with teams who, say, as a green and white school color team, are wearing their white jerseys and want to wear their green headbands and we have to tell 'em no that green isn't the predominant color of their jerseys
3. "Anything worn on the arm and/or leg is a sleeve" (3-5-3a)... is wrong, since 3-5-4 details requisites about wristbands, which are enforced differently than arm sleeves.
4. Casebook 3.5.4 directly contradicts rule 3-5-4a.
This whole attempt at fashion police enhancement, unnecessary as it is, seems ill-contrived and hastily thrown together and without real need. And that's no way to maintain authority and order.
Getting a group of officials to buy into a rule change as chaotic and nonsensical as this is gonna be like pushing a rope. The Fed has to put themselves of those out there in the field who have to deal with the changes they come up with like this. But they didn't.
That's why it's so hard.
Then again, don't care and it wouldn't be that hard.
I'm hoping our state reverts to last year's rule on this and we can get back to RSBQ and 1,2 Jabbar automatics, etc--things that really matter.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Hi (state association director),
These "fashion police" changes by NFHS are getting out of hand. There are errors this year, and what worked great last year for the first time is being retracted again this year.
Any chance the (state association) can be convinced to waive the change the NFHS made once again to the color restriction regarding optional adornments? Right when they got basketball rule 3-5-3 and 3-5-4 to a point that it was easily enforcible (white, black, beige, or a single solid school color for arm-sleeves and leg-sleeves and for headbands and wristbands). No problem with that last year whatsoever. The players finally had a rule they could live with . . . and they did. Easy for everyone. And now this year they change "single solid school color" to "predominant color of the uniform."
This "fashion police" retraction to how it was previous years is not only borderline senseless, given the hesitancy of many officials not to mess with these rules at all, it will become a chaotic, unenforced, inconsistently enforced situation like it was two years ago and prior. What in the world precipitated this change? Were there rampant problems with last year's rule or something?
Any chance the (state association) can waive this new NFHS change and revert to how these two rules were last season when they worked just great?
Also, the unintended contradiction between 3-5-4a and supporting casebook 3.5.4 needs to be corrected.
Also, the phrase in 3-5-3a, "Anything worn on the arm and/or leg is a sleeve" is not correct, given 3-5-4 obviously gives separate rules for wristbands and headbands.

Please consider the headache trainers are gonna have with these errors and seemingly unnecessary changes and waive these NFHS changes for our state this and following years.

Looking forward to your seasoned and directive response.

I say go one step further. Send a version of the same letter to the NFHS Rules Editor, Theresia Wynns. If she receives enough of them it might effect some change. I plan to do it as soon as I either have my rule book in hand (October 21) or the new online version appears on Arbiter, whichever comes first.