Short Tights Or Compression Shorts ...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

True/False A player from the home team may legally wear gray tights.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

What if the tights stop above the knee, are made of a compression type material, and the uniform shorts are gray?

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Tights extend below the knee. Compression shorts do not.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Citation please.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I've been told by my local interpreter that Peter Webb, IAABO (International)Coordinator of Interpreters, who now has a role on the NFHS Basketball Rules Committee, will be working with the committee to determine the difference between short tights, and compression shorts. With tights now legal, references to compression shorts may be making an exit from the rulebook.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

If you look at the comments on rules in the back of this year's rules book, you will see that the first mention of tights specifies that they extend below the knee and after that every use of the word tights carries this meaning as they are required to meet the same restrictions as leg sleeves.

Here's what it actually states: "Tights that extend below the knee are now legal."

The statement doesn't define tights, it just specifies that something that was once illegal, is now legal.

Put on a pair of tights that extend from your waist to your ankles. If they're black, white, beige, or the predominate color of the uniform jersey, than they're legal. Now start cutting them (no frayed edges, in fact, might as well put a hem on them to make then completely legal) back. First they're mid calf length. Shorter? Now they're knee length. Shorter? Now they're above the knee length. Everything is still legal. When did they change from tights to compression shorts and therefore have to be the same color as the uniform shorts? If you answer, "above the knee", then I would like a citation for that, and an explanation of how one item of clothing can miraculously change into a completely different item of clothing.

And 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?

Note that I'm not completely satisfied with my explanation (above), but neither am I satisfied with your definition based on the statement in the "Comments On The Rules Changes". In my opinion, the NFHS "screwed the pooch" with some new, ambiguous, rules regarding tights, and compression shorts, rules that need some clarification next year.

For now, regarding compression type shorts, my local interpreter has told us to accept black, white, beige, or predominate color of the uniform jersey, and call them tights; and to also accept color of the uniform shorts, and call them compression shorts; so that A1 would be allowed to play with black above the knee tights, or sleeves, under red uniform shorts; and teammate A2 would be allowed to play with red compression shorts under red uniform shorts. According to him, the rules are too ambiguous to ask either of these players to change their equipment.

[Nevadaref]

When do tights become shorts? When they are cut down so that they are short! That can easily be defined by the length being above the knee.

Your interpreter's decision to permit teammates to wear different colored items on their legs is nonsensical and goes against the basic principle that the NFHS has been pushing for the past few years--items worn by teammates need to match in color.

[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?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by deecee

Did this really morph into it's own thread?

Because just another ref asked politely.

Originally Posted by just another ref

Take it to another thread please, Billy.

[JRutledge]

It really does not matter what you call them. If you are wearing something from the waist that is under you shorts/skit that extends below the knee, then they cannot be worn or cannot be shown.

If it is something they can take off without removing their shorts or pants, then they can wear them, but they must follow the color restrictions.

BTW, this was clarified by our head person the other day as I was having a similar disagreement with a fellow official.

Peace

[deecee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It really does not matter what you call them. If you are wearing something from the waist that is under you shorts/skit that extends below the knee, then they cannot be worn or cannot be shown.

If it is something they can take off without removing their shorts or pants, then they can wear them, but they must follow the color restrictions.

BTW, this was clarified by our head person the other day as I was having a similar disagreement with a fellow official.

Peace

Who is going to ask the player to prove they can be removed with removing their shorts

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by deecee

Who is going to ask the player to prove they can be removed with removing their shorts

First of all you can look at the items and tell what they are or what they are not. Secondly you can ask a kid what they are. Often times they do not know the rule so they tell you what they are.

Finally I do not work girls basketball, so asking a player about an illegal item or having them remove them does not bother me. And I never ask any player to "prove it to me" what they have on. They tell you what they have on and describe the item to you or show you on their own.

Peace