Apparel questions.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

That makes perfect sense to me. IMO the intent of the rule is all sleeves match to avoid confusion. Therefore it seems to me even though it is an undershirt the sleeves should match the other players but as been previously pointed out by other posters the NFHS isn't always logical.

Huh?? Did you really just say that?

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Well stated. Stupid NFHS.

Hey, we do NOT need the Fashion Police graphic or the State of Connecticut graphic attached to every freaking message you post.

If the graphic doesn't add to the conversation, resist posting it.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Yes, if the color was only seen with the peripheral vision. See Georgetown v. North Carolina, 1982 (maybe?)

As the GU alum in the bunch - though I wasn't there at the time - that turnover didn't have anything to do with undershirt colors. Both GU and UNC wore powder blue road uniforms and white home uniforms in '81-82. The '82 National Championship was the only time GU had worn blue since the end of the regular season. The thought was Fred Brown saw James Worthy's white uniform and had a brain glitch. The next season was the first for GU in dark blue & grey uniforms.

Ewing wore a grey undershirt his first two years. The only reason it became an issue was Thompson had him wear one as a sophomore that had a Nike logo - a mini-sneaker, actually - on the sleeves (yes "sleeves," as in those things that extend off the torso of the shirt). By the '83-84 season the NCAA standardized things: t-shirts had to be the same color as the jersey and they couldn't have any logos.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

As the GU alum in the bunch - ...

I think you share that distinction with an esteemed member (not me).

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Huh?? Did you really just say that?

Peace

I did. What do you think the intent of the rule is? I feel they want all sleeves matching to avoid confusion as was pointed out by another poster earlier. Therefore it would stand to reason they want all sleeves, including undershirt long sleeves, to match not just the ones that are not attached to something else.

If they truly think different color sleeves could cause confusion, which I feel to be a silly notion, then why would a different color sleeve not cause confusion just bc it is attached to something else?

Either way I think this has run its course. It was pointed out it was legal. I feel the case could be made for which it is illegal. Others disagree. Game over.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

I did. What do you think the intent of the rule is? I feel they want all sleeves matching to avoid confusion as was pointed out by another poster earlier. Therefore it would stand to reason they want all sleeves, including undershirt long sleeves, to match not just the ones that are not attached to something else.

I do not have to think what the intent of the rule is, I was officiating long before the rule was in place. And this rule has been tweaked several times over when it comes to color and these types of items. The rule for undershirts was long before these accessory items that were started by Allen Iverson to be popularized. So no, it would not stand to reason that any undershirt item has anything to do with an arm sleeve. Even full length tights have little or nothing to do with leg sleeves. For a long time these items were worn and there is no restriction of what color they were or even if they had a logo or how many different type of items could be worn.

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

If they truly think different color sleeves could cause confusion, which I feel to be a silly notion, then why would a different color sleeve not cause confusion just bc it is attached to something else?

Who said the rule was created for confusion? The rule was created to have uniformity in items. Not sure how different colors of a head band or a sleeve causes confusion.

Peace

[Raymond]

The "yay but" mentality will not serve you well in this avocation.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The "yay but" mentality will not serve you well in this avocation.

Thank you for your advise.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not have to think what the intent of the rule is, I was officiating long before the rule was in place. And this rule has been tweaked several times over when it comes to color and these types of items. The rule for undershirts was long before these accessory items that were started by Allen Iverson to be popularized. So no, it would not stand to reason that any undershirt item has anything to do with an arm sleeve. Even full length tights have little or nothing to do with leg sleeves. For a long time these items were worn and there is no restriction of what color they were or even if they had a logo or how many different type of items could be worn.



Who said the rule was created for confusion? The rule was created to have uniformity in items. Not sure how different colors of a head band or a sleeve causes confusion.

Peace

If not to avoid confusion then why do we need uniformity. Is it merely for aesthetic reasons? I was told I needed to understand the intent of the rule. That is what I'm trying to do.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

Thank you for your advise.

Yeah....but......

Peace

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yeah....but......

Peace

No, truthfully. This whole thread wasn't my attempt at being argumentative but in an attempt to understand. I read this site to learn not argue and I attempt to see both sides of any discussion. I honestly thought that others would think that with the way the "sleeve" rule is worded that it could be construed that the undershirt long sleeves would have to match. Obviously I was wrong.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

No, truthfully. This whole thread wasn't my attempt at being argumentative but in an attempt to understand. I read this site to learn not argue and I attempt to see both sides of any discussion. I honestly thought that others would think that with the way the "sleeve" rule is worded that it could be construed that the undershirt long sleeves would have to match. Obviously I was wrong.

Methinkis you are over thinking. As Mr. Rutledge noted, these rules came in over time as stuff developed. Back when i played anyone who thought of puting on a t-shirt under a hoops uniform would be forever branded a hopeless wuss. Times change. (As I recall, Ewing had some reaction to the material in the shirts, and his cotton t-shirts were, at least initially, to create a barrier with the shirt.)

So rules got developed to govern t shirts and keep uniforms uniform, which have been tweaked over the years.

Later, more accessories developed, and rules developed to address those. When sleeves first were arriving, they didn't come in all colors of the rainbow, but NFHS wanted to regulate. (I suspect some of the impetus was to avoid the flourescent yellow sleeve on the star to make him easier to find, but that is pure supposition on my part.)

So committees tried to write rules. And different conisderations drove addressing different issues, so we get different rules that use different language. And the olks who make the rules seem to have some sympathy to not making people throw out stuff they arleady have. It takes time to coalesce rules to more consistency -- and all rule changes take someone caring enough to propose the change.

I really like Bob's simple home = white; away = black or predominant color -- which could unify everything. No one would ever have to buy more than two of anything.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

If not to avoid confusion then why do we need uniformity. Is it merely for aesthetic reasons? I was told I needed to understand the intent of the rule. That is what I'm trying to do.

Yes, it is aesthetic reasons. It has nothing to do with confusing one team for another. They wear uniforms, and want everyone to be the same.

I have a friend who has a daughter playing college basketball. She and another girl had a lighter, more flourscent colored blue socks on than the rest of the team. The officials made them change their socks to match the rest of the team.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

No, truthfully. This whole thread wasn't my attempt at being argumentative but in an attempt to understand. I read this site to learn not argue and I attempt to see both sides of any discussion. I honestly thought that others would think that with the way the "sleeve" rule is worded that it could be construed that the undershirt long sleeves would have to match. Obviously I was wrong.

Some things you do not need to see both sides. Not sure why that would be an issue in the first place. Many of us have been around to see these rules evolve. I do not like the fact these are rules, but they were developed over my career. Heck I remember when socks were regulated as in what logo could be on them and how we had to navigate those items for about a year or two.

The point BNR is trying to make, when you get an answer from people you requested (many have been working 20 or more years) it is not a good look to debate with their perspective. And it is really bad to argue with a rule that is written clearly and people have seen why the rule was put in the book in the first place. And unlike when I started, the NF did not have a working relationship with the Referee/NASO where they put out a guide that describes the reason for rules changes. There was also not the social media that could discuss these things in detail either. That is why people can confidently talk about the differences in these items and how they do or do not fall under the same restrictions.

Peace

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by OKREF

I have a friend who has a daughter playing college basketball. She and another girl had a lighter, more flourscent colored blue socks on than the rest of the team. The officials made them change their socks to match the rest of the team.

That's beyond the scope of an official's duties in NCAAW.