Apparel questions.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

What about question one. Are the different sleeves on the undershirt not considered arm sleeves for the purpose of matching all other sleeves or are the required to meet the rules for undershirts and sleeves?

See post 2.

Undershirts are one rule.

Sleeves (arm and leg) are another (in FED; in NCAAW they are two rules)

Bands (head and wrist) are another.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

What about question one. Are the different sleeves on the undershirt not considered arm sleeves for the purpose of matching all other sleeves or are the required to meet the rules for undershirts and sleeves?

if it is an undershirt it can be long sleeve in high school but it must be predominant color of uniform.(color of the neutral zone i think they call it) both sleeves on undershirt have to be same length. entirely different rule for "sleeves" as pointed out. thx

undershirts have sleeves... but their not sleeves…that seems fitting for fashion police rules...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BigCat

... undershirts have sleeves... but their not sleeves…that seems fitting for fashion police rules...

Well stated. Stupid NFHS.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Already answered:

I seen that but I don't think it is that clear cut.

3-5-3a states anything worn on the arm is a sleeve and shall meet the color requirements
3-5-3c states all sleeves shall be the same color.

Seems that it could possibly be reasoned that the sleeves of an undershirt would follow under these two rules as the sleeves of an undershirt would follow under the "anything" part.

However also the sleeves are part of an undershirt so it would be logical that they would have to meet those requirements including the predominant color of the jersey.

Disclosure: we allowed the different colors as I felt it could be argued both ways. No one made an issue of it. So it just was a discussion my partner and I had.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

I seen that but I don't think it is that clear cut.

3-5-3a states anything worn on the arm is a sleeve and shall meet the color requirements
3-5-3c states all sleeves shall be the same color.

Seems that it could possibly be reasoned that the sleeves of an undershirt would follow under these two rules as the sleeves of an undershirt would follow under the "anything" part.

However also the sleeves are part of an undershirt so it would be logical that they would have to meet those requirements including the predominant color of the jersey.

Disclosure: we allowed the different colors as I felt it could be argued both ways. No one made an issue of it. So it just was a discussion my partner and I had.

"sleeves" are only on the arm (when talking about arm sleeves) undershirts have sleeves but also cover the tummy….dont fight it. its an undershirt if the sleeves are attached...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

... so it would be logical ...

That's your problem, assuming that the NFHS fashion police rules are logical. You are confusing the NFHS with Mr. Spock. They are 180 degrees apart. Check out my compression shorts/tights question in post #14 above. Stupid NFHS.

Mr. Spock:



NFHS:

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by BigCat

"sleeves" are only on the arm (when talking about arm sleeves) undershirts have sleeves but also cover the tummy….dont fight it. its an undershirt if the sleeves are attached...

I'm fine with it either way. That is why we allowed it we though you could easily make the case that it is legal.

I like the rule change to predominant color. I would prefer to see the rule that predominant color is the only allowed option for all apparel.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

I seen that but I don't think it is that clear cut.

3-5-3a states anything worn on the arm is a sleeve and shall meet the color requirements
3-5-3c states all sleeves shall be the same color.

Seems that it could possibly be reasoned that the sleeves of an undershirt would follow under these two rules as the sleeves of an undershirt would follow under the "anything" part.

However also the sleeves are part of an undershirt so it would be logical that they would have to meet those requirements including the predominant color of the jersey.
....

It is that clear cut. And if you don't think it is that clear cut from the very clear answer I gave, what answer do you think is going to bring anymore clarity?

Rule 3-5-3 specifically says "Arm sleeves, knee sleeves, lower leg sleeves and tights are permissible:" Arm sleeves are a separate piece of equipment, they are not a part of a t-shirt or undershirt.

Rule 3-5-6 specifically talks about undershirts, which is a single item that has to be a single, solid color. If the home team was wearing a white t-shirt that had black sleeves, then that is not a single color, it's multiple colors.

T-shirts and arm sleeves are 2 separate rules and 2 separate items of equipment.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

I would prefer to see the rule that predominant color is the only allowed option for all apparel.

Sounds good, but that would force players to have two sets of fashion accessories, one set for home, and another set for the road, which would double the cost to teams, players, or parents. Right now they only have to purchase two different undershirts.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

I'm fine with it either way. That is why we allowed it we though you could easily make the case that it is legal.

I like the rule change to predominant color. I would prefer to see the rule that predominant color is the only allowed option for all apparel.

…and they want to let kids wear the stuff and they just don't make them in every color...

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It is that clear cut. And if you don't think it is that clear cut from the very clear answer I gave, what answer do you think is going to bring anymore clarity?

Rule 3-5-3 specifically says "Arm sleeves, knee sleeves, lower leg sleeves and tights are permissible:" Arm sleeves are a separate piece of equipment, they are not a part of a t-shirt or undershirt.

Rule 3-5-6 specifically talks about undershirts, which is a single item that has to be a single, solid color. If the home team was wearing a white t-shirt that had black sleeves, then that is not a single color, it's multiple colors.

T-shirts and arm sleeves are 2 separate rules and 2 separate items of equipment.

The part in which I believe causing some ambiguity is in rule 3-5-3a that states "anything that is worn on the arm and/or leg us a sleeve, except a knee brace, and shall meet the color restrictions."

The rule says "anything." No where in there does it say except if attached to an undershirt. No where does it say that the undershirt rule takes priority over this rule. That is why I say it isn't clear cut.

Even in the undershirt rule is uses the word sleeves to define sleeves on a shirt. Also per the definition of sleeves as being anything worn on the arm. I feel it is reasonable that some could conclude that if a player had a blue undershirt with long blue sleeves on that all other players sleeves must match.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Sounds good, but that would force players to have two sets of fashion accessories, one set for home, and another set for the road, which would double the cost to teams, players, or parents. Right now they only have to purchase two different undershirts.

I don't think that is a valid complaint. Since these are items not required and they are choosing to spend the extra money it would be hard for them to complain about buying two sets when they are not required to buy any.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by BigCat

…and they want to let kids wear the stuff and they just don't make them in every color...

I would hazard a guess that one could find these accessories in every major uniform color. Perhaps a different shade but still the same color.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

I don't think that is a valid complaint. Since these are items not required and they are choosing to spend the extra money it would be hard for them to complain about buying two sets when they are not required to buy any.

I agree that it may not be a valid complaint, but I do believe that this is the reason that the NFHS writes rules that allow a few color options.

Is it an oxymoron to use the word "reason" and "NFHS" in the same sentence?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

That's your problem, assuming that the NFHS fashion police rules are logical. You are confusing the NFHS with Mr. Spock. They are 180 degrees apart. Check out my compression shorts/tights question in post #14 above. Stupid NFHS.

Mr. Spock:



NFHS:

+1

MTD, Sr.