Apparel questions.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

I have read them and as I have stated I am fine with the ruling you have given. I was just surprised that no one would consider undershirt sleeves as arm sleeves.

It's because they are not the same thing. Not even close. You're the only one who doesn't get this. An undershirt that doesnt have long sleeves still has sleeves on them, it's called a short sleeve undershirt.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by OKREF

It's because they are not the same thing. Not even close. You're the only one who doesn't get this. An undershirt that doesnt have long sleeves still has sleeves on them, it's called a short sleeve undershirt.

I think that is an exaggeration that they are not even close to the same thing. Since by NFHS definition is a sleeve is anything worn on the arm and an undershirt sleeves are not listed as an exclusion.

Also I do get it. my original idea was that it could be argued either way. I'm completely fine that the ruling is they are legal as I also could argue that side by rule.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

I think that is an exaggeration that they are not even close to the same thing. Since by NFHS definition is a sleeve is anything worn on the arm and an undershirt sleeves are not listed as an exclusion.

Also I do get it. my original idea was that it could be argued either way. I'm completely fine that the ruling is they are legal as I also could argue that side by rule.

Context is everything. Remember that most of us have been officiating since before the wearing of these items became popular and have seen the full development of the rules regarding them. We know what they were written to address and what the intent is. Someone such as yourself who is new to the scene doesn't have that perspective and must strive to learn solely from the written text, which is difficult, or augment your training by speaking to veterans, such as you have been doing here.

Please open your NFHS rules book to page 8 and read the section entitled "The Intent and Purpose of the Rules." One sentence is, "Therefore, it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation."

We hope to offer you that here.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Context is everything. Remember that most of us have been officiating since before the wearing of these items became popular and have seen the full development of the rules regarding them. We know what they were written to address and what the intent is. Someone such as yourself who is new to the scene doesn't have that perspective and must strive to learn solely from the written text, which is difficult, or augment your training by speaking to veterans, such as you have been doing here.

Please open your NFHS rules book to page 8 and read the section entitled "The Intent and Purpose of the Rules." One sentence is, "Therefore, it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation."

We hope to offer you that here.

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

That makes perfect sense to me. IMO the rule of all sleeves matching is to avoided 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.

Undeshirt colors do have to match for all team members. And they have to match the jersey color.

[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

[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

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

I think that is an exaggeration that they are not even close to the same thing. Since by NFHS definition is a sleeve is anything worn on the arm and an undershirt sleeves are not listed as an exclusion.

Also I do get it. my original idea was that it could be argued either way. I'm completely fine that the ruling is they are legal as I also could argue that side by rule.

A wristband worn just under the elbow is on the arm, is that a sleeve?

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by OKREF

A wristband worn just under the elbow is on the arm, is that a sleeve?

I wouldn't think so but I could understand where by rule it could be considered one.

[jeremy341a]

Everyone seems to think I'm stuck on one side of the argument. I was merely trying to illustrate my point of I think both sides could be argued by rule.

Thanks for the knowledge. I'm sure tomorrow night will give me something else to ponder.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by OKREF

A wristband worn just under the elbow is on the arm, is that a sleeve?

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

I wouldn't think so but I could understand where by rule it could be considered one.

Are you being serious here?

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

Everyone seems to think I'm stuck on one side of the argument. I was merely trying to illustrate my point of I think both sides could be argued by rule.

With all due respect, this is totally not true.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

Everyone seems to think I'm stuck on one side of the argument. I was merely trying to illustrate my point of I think both sides could be argued by rule.

when you argue the other side you are arguing against what an "undershirt" has been defined as for years..perhaps centuries. when you argue the other side you are only looking at the sleeve equipment wording "anything on arm." it would be nice if wording was different for your benefit. but in arguing "the other side" you are obliterating the undershirt rule.

so yes, you can argue the other side but it is off the wall based on the history of the game and rules construction.

[Raymond]

Yeah, but