Short Tights Or Compression Shorts ...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

... the basic principle that the NFHS has been pushing for the past few years--items worn by teammates need to match in color.

Then how do you explain this: What if they're not all then way up to the waist? What if they're sleeves that extend from below the crotch (above the bottom of the uniform shorts) to just above the knee? Are these compression shorts that have to be the same color as the uniform shorts, or are these sleeves that can be black, white, beige, or the predominate color of the uniform jersey? Thus, two teammates can have very different, but legal looks.

So, whether they're cinched at the waist, or not, makes a big difference? Even if you can't see whether, or not, they are cinched.

Let's face it, the NFHS really didn't do a great job thinking through these Fashion Police changes, with, what I believe to be, a few unintended consequences. That's all I'm trying to say. It's not as clear as black, or white (or beige).

[Nevadaref]

An official needs to be able to tell the difference between a sleeve and shorts. It's that simple.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

An official needs to be able to tell the difference between a sleeve and shorts. It's that simple.

So, you're having the player drop his shorts to see if they are just tall sleeves or shorts/tights?

[Adam]

Call me a coward, but I'm not looking under the kilts.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

An official needs to be able to tell the difference between a sleeve and shorts. It's that simple.

Exactly my point. Thanks. Why did the NFHS force us into wondering about, or asking awkward questions (especially to girls) about, what the player is wearing under the shorts, when a few choice words in the new rule would have simplified the fashion rule, which I believe was one intention (fewer legal colors) of the change?

[HokiePaul]

I don't think this is that difficult. It says "Tights that extend below the knee are now legal."

So if he garment worn extends below the knee, then it would be tights and subject to the restrictions for arm sleeves, knee sleeves, lower leg sleeves and tights (black, white, beige or the predominant color of the uniform and same for teamates)

If the garment worn doesn't extend below the knee, then it is not legal as tights (call it whatever you want). But the garment worn could be legal as compression shorts if it is the predominant color of the uniform and does not extend below the pants.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

If the garment worn doesn't extend below the knee, then it is not legal as tights (call it whatever you want). But the garment worn could be legal as compression shorts if it is the predominant color of the uniform and does not extend below the pants.

The statement, "Tights that extend below the knee are now legal", doesn't define tights, it just specifies that something that was once illegal, is now legal.

So a thigh sleeve (not shorts) isn't a sleeve? I thought that anything worn on the leg (except a brace with hinges, straps) is a sleeve?

All I'm saying is that the new fashion rules need some work.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The statement, "Tights that extend below the knee are now legal", doesn't define tights, it just specifies that something that was once illegal, is now legal.

So a thigh sleeve (not shorts) isn't a sleeve? I thought that anything worn on the leg (except a brace with hinges, straps) is a sleeve?

All I'm saying is that the new fashion rules need some work.

After reading this thread, the first thing I want to do after breakfast is to go on NetFlix and watch Mel Brook's Men in Tights, .

MTD, Sr.

[deecee]

Did this really morph into it's own thread?