Apparel questions.
 

1. V team is wearing blue jerseys. 3 v players are wearing white arm sleeves. However another V player had a blue underarmor shirt that has long blue compression type sleeves. Is this legal since all players "arm sleeves" don't match or does the shirt sleeves not count as an arm sleeve?

2 when reading the case book I ran across 3.5.4. It basically says team a schools colors are blue and gold but predominate uniform color is white. It says they are wearing blue headbands and wristbands. The book calls this legal? Shouldn't they be illegal as they are not white, black, beige or a predominant school color?

Undershirts are a separate rule from arm/headbands & sleeves.

I don't understand your question here. You said blue is a school color, and that a school color is allowed, but then don't understand why they are legal. Huh?

I'm guessing your question revolves around the fact that the wristbands and headbands are not the predominant color of the uniform. Well, as you pointed out, the rule doesn't say the wrist/headbands have to be the predominant color... just a school color. The predominant thing has to do with the undershirt or undershorts/tights.

Long sleeve undershirts that match predomninant color of uniform are ok in high school. in college (men anyway) undershirts cannot go past the elbow....but you can wear arm sleeves....:confused:

Yes I screwed up and forgot to add predominant in my original post I edited it. The rule for headbands wristbands does say predominant color. Yet in case book it isn't predominant color or white or black or beige yet it says legal. That is where I'm confused.

Hmm...

I read the rule book, and it does say that a wrist/headband has to be the predominant color of the uniform (or black, white, beige). I would have swore it just had to be a school color, not necessarily the predominant uniform color.

It's not listed as a rule change, but it's shaded as if it is one.

So I don't know. Sorry for saying you were wrong. I guess at this point we don't know if the case play is based on the old rule, or if the rule is written wrong.

It's all good. Usually I am wrong. I speculate the casebook wasn't updated with new rule. I only run onto it while looking for an answer to my first question of does undershirt sleeves also count as arm sleeves.

I wrote an email and NFHS informed me the case book was incorrect.

Yes, the alteration to 3-5-4 is an unannounced rule change this season. It is a good one though as there is no decent way for a game official to know the school colors for a particular institution. What if the school is visiting from out of state and just wearing black uniforms? So the committee wisely changed from a school color to the predominant color of the uniform.

The notice from the NFHS correcting the Case Book ruling is posted in the NFHS website with the Interpretations for this season.

Robert B. Gardner, Publisher, NFHS Publications © 2014

Rule Book Corrections: Page 2, 2014-15 NFHS Basketball Rules Changes, 9-1-4g should read 9-1-3g.
Page 55, Rule 9-1-4, Delete.
Case Book Corrections:
Pages 25-26, 3.5.4 SITUATION, RULING Correction: illegal equipment in (a); the blue headbands and wristbands do not match the predominant color of the uniform (white).
Page 29, 4.14.1D SITUATION, RULING Correction: Officials notify the Team A coach of the disqualification and allow a substitute for A1. The points made by A1 will stand. B3 is allowed to shoot the free throws for the technical foul and Team B is given the ball at half court to continue the game. (4-14-2; 2-11-5 Note)
Page 70, 9.1 COMMENT: Sentence 2 should read: Once a free throw begins no player may enter or leave a marked lane space or break with either foot the vertical plane of a free throw lane line or lane space boundary prior to the release of the ball by the free thrower. Delete last sentence.

It's predominant color of uniform, not the school.

The interps and corrections are also posted on this website.

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?

Red Is The New Blue ...
 

Bingo. The official school colors of my hometown high school are blue and white, and have been the school colors going all the way back to the 1940's. I used to teach in the system, my kids went to school there, and I know this for a fact. Over the past thirty years some uniforms have included red piping as an additional color, an "unofficial" school color. Several years ago, a new head football coach outfitted the team with red helmets. At the time I was tending bar at a local country club. You should have heard the barfly old timers complaining about the red helmets. It didn't matter whether the new coach, and the team, were doing well, or not, it was those damn red helmets, and red was not a school color.

Stupid NFHS ...
 

Apparently, no. These fashion guidelines are in two different rules. We all know the difference between sleeveless undershirts, and undershirts with sleeves, but the NFHS must not believe that undershirts have "sleeves".

Now check this out. What's the difference between compression shorts, that must be above the knee, and the same color as the uniform shorts; and short tights, that may be of any length (including short, i.e., above the knee), and must be white, black, beige, or the predominate color of the uniform jersey? Go ahead and tell me the difference. Please.

BillyMac: "Young man, you're not allowed to wear those gold tights because they are not white, black, beige, or the predominate color of your blue uniform jersey."
Player: "These are not tights, Mr. handsome official, they're gold compression shorts, and they match the gold color of my uniform shorts."
BillyMac: "Could you please get me a towel so that I may wipe the egg off my face. And I don't care what color the towel is."

Doesn't the NFHS think these things through before making final decisions on rule changes? Why can't they simplify these "color" rules for the benefit of officials, coaches, and players? I don't care if they make the "color" rules stricter, or less strict, but just make them simpler to understand, and interpret, and maybe, with a little bit of common sense, with "rule language" similar to the "everyday language" of officials, coaches, players, and the parents that probably purchase most of these fashion accessories. This shouldn't be rocket surgery, or brain science.

Already answered:

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.

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...

Frustrating ...
 

Well stated. Stupid NFHS.

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...

Logical ??? NFHS ??? You Have Got To Be Kidding ...
 

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:

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.6079...8&pid=15.1&P=0

NFHS:

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.6080...2&pid=15.1&P=0

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.

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.

Double Your Pleasure, Double Your Fun ...
 

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.

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

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.

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

The Rainbow Connection ...
 

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?

+1

MTD, Sr.

Patience Is A Virtue ...
 

Thanks Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I was sure that it would be deleted by the moderators, but I guess that they're a little more lenient on lazy Sundays.

Actually, they've been very patient with me lately. Did becoming an esteemed member really come with some clout? Do they know something about me that I don't? Do I have only two weeks to live? Am I dying?

In any case, they're doing a good job. That's why they get paid the big internet bucks. I've been forwarding my Forum dues to Mark Padgett, as he instructed, and I'm sure that he's passing on the cash to the moderators.

Why would you post something if you were sure it would be deleted?

Hee Haw ...
 

Because I was hoping that it wouldn't be deleted. There's nothing like a little bit of corny humor on a lazy Sunday afternoon.

You're making this way harder than it is. The "anything worn on the arm is a sleeve" deals only with the Allan Iverson shooting sleeves, and the compression sleeves that have the elbow pad in them. An undershirt with sleeves simply means a long sleeve shirt. It isn't hard to understand.

Nice tone Guess the word anything means only somethings.

Shirts are not worn on the arm. They are worn on the body with parts that extend down the arms.

Rules need to be read in context. Not taken in isolation. And, yes, there are instances where the rules could be worded better. COntinuing to argue / discuss it it pointless.

I agree and I completely see the other side as well.
Why do you think there is a rule that they all need to match? Is it really likely someone would pass to an opponent bc of the color of their sleeve. I feel that is unlikely. I was only shocked that no one could think that they wasn't all sleeves to match no matter whether they are attached to an undershirt or not.

What are the parts that extend down the arms called if not sleeves?

Do you think that a wrist band is a sleeve because it is worn on the arm? What colors are permissible for wrist bands? Do they have to match sleeves?

There is an NFHS Case Book play that provides these answers for you.

Blast From The Past ...
 

Love the Allan Iverson reference. Also, it's Patrick Ewing undershirts.

A1 Fouls A2 ???
 

Disagree. During scrimmages, where we take a pass on many Fashion Police rules (for same reason, Connecticut teams almost never wear uniforms for scrimmages, they usually wear reversible vests that they probably wear at practice), I have had difficulty identifying teammates, and opponents, on rebounding fouls when a player wearing a blue jersey, with a white undershirt, is contesting a rebound with a player with a white jersey. It's lot easier when they are wearing legal colors. A lot easier.

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

What about the fact that players rarely wear two arm sleeves (the Allen Iverson type)? They're normally only worn on one arm.

I'm for making all non-uniform apparel fall under the same color rule. I don't think a player has to wear an undershirt, arm sleeve, compression shorts, tights, etc. So if they don't want to spend the money to have more than one color of them, to be legal, then that's on them.

A basketball official needs to know the terminology of basketball rules.We are not fans or coaches or players; we should have a basic understanding above what the general public has.

A case for they all should be the predominant color. White team passes to blue team wearing white sleeves. One color would be better.

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.

Shirts.

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. :)

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

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.

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

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.

Right on. Started the craze when he was at Georgetown.

Are you being serious here?





With all due respect, this is totally not true.

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

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.

Yeah, but :rolleyes:

Huh?? Did you really just say that?

Peace

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

Thank you for your advise.

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.

Yeah....but......:rolleyes:

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.

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.

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.

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

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

This was an NAIA game. Any difference?

No.

Are there any logo restrictions for socks on the Women's side?

Yes. 1 logo per sock.