Where are the NFHS rule changes?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

We certainly agree here. I'm tired of enforcing a color restrictions on headbands, wrist bands, and sleeves, and getting an earful of, "But we were allowed to wear that Tuesday night". That's certainly not a good way to develop good rapport with a coach before the game even starts. It's also not a good way to build good rapport with a partner that choses not to enforce such rules. The NFHS should lower their color restriction standards to only those that could affect how the game is officiated.

We probably disagree on color restrictions on undershirts. As I've stated in a previous post, different color undershirts, especially opponents with the same color undershirts, can create some degree of difficultly identifying the team that a player is on, especially in a cluster of rebounding players pushing each other, that a simple "undershirt same color as jersey" rule can remedy.

I am still trying to figure out what you are reading? I did not say anything about the undershirt needing to be a different color. I am not even saying that the rule should be changed. I am once again, only talking about an arm sleeve or a headband that can be very easily removed in most cases. You are trying to mention something that once again, I never was talking about in the context of this conversation.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I did not say anything about the undershirt needing to be a different color.

In this thread on "Fashion Police" issues, you have implied that you don't see the need for color restrictions on wrist bands, headbands, and sleeves ("stuff"), but you do seem to see the need for such restrictions on the color of the jersey, something that you, and I, seem to agree upon.

Since you never stated that you agreed with me on undershirt ("stuff") color restrictions, I just assumed that you disagreed with me. If I assumed incorrectly, then I sincerely apologize.

Unlike Felix Unger, in this case, I've only made an ass out of me.

https://youtu.be/LfvTwv5o1Qs

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

In this thread on "Fashion Police" issues, you have implied that you don't see the need for color restrictions on wrist bands, headbands, and sleeves ("stuff"), but you do seem to see the need for such restrictions on the color of the jersey, something that you, and I, seem to agree upon.

Since you never stated that you agreed with me on undershirt ("stuff") color restrictions, I just assumed that you disagreed with me. If I assumed incorrectly, then I sincerely apologize.

Again, you created a disagreement on an issue we were never talking about. And unless you have a problem officiating different kids that are different skin tones, I do not think it is impossible to officiate kids with different color items on their arms and legs that happened to be on the same team.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Unlike Felix Unger, in this case, I've only made an ass out of me.

Let the record show, these are you words, not mine.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Again, you created a disagreement on an issue we were never talking about ... I do not think it is impossible to officiate kids with different color items on their arms and legs that happened to be on the same team.

Impossible? Absolutely not.

I was talking about an issue (how can you continue to say the "we were never talking about" it, we were, I'm part of we, a dues paying, esteemed, member in good standing, of the Forum), and I don't appreciate being ignored, especially with responses that indicate that my posts have been read, but, never the less, ignored as if they didn't exist. And if you want to ignore my post, then you are certainly free to do so, but be sure to really ignore the post, a sure sign that the post was ignored would be a nonresponse to the post.

And I don't believe that I should be called on the carpet for expanding the scope, while still very much on topic, of a thread.

Why do you continue to insist on not broaching, or responding to, the subject of color restrictions for undershirts? It's certainly on topic: NFHS color restrictions for uniforms, and equipment.

Color restrictions should make the game easier to officiate. Those color restrictions that don't make the game easier to officiate should be stricken from the rulebook. From the waist, to the neck, not including the wrists, I believe that members of the same team should be wearing the same color. I don't care what they wear on their heads, on their wrists, and below the waist. Thus, all team members should be wearing the same color jerseys, with undershirts the same color as the jersey, since undershirts can give the appearance of a (legal) long sleeve jersey.

NFHS color restrictions on headbands, wrist bands, compression shorts, and leg sleeves, only make the game harder, not easier, to officiate by creating conflicts between an official, the players, the coaches, and sometimes, the official's partner. NFHS color restrictions that don't make the game easier to officiate, make it harder to officiate.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but, I really don't see any disagreement between us on this issue?

Are we still not talking about undershirts? If we weren't before, we certainly are now.

[JRutledge]

Billy,

You were responding to my comments I made. Then you tried to drag me into a disagreement about something I was not addressing or no one was addressing in this conversation. I realize you seem like a person that does not get out much, but stop telling me what I should talk about because you are hung up on something personally. I do not want to broaden a conversation when the only thing we are talking about (in this actual thread) is this current rule change in the language. If you want to have a conversation about what should happen with undershirt, I am sure there are people that would love to have that conversation with you. But other than you including me in this constant silly rantings of yours, I seem to be the only person talking about these things the way you are. No one else is even addressing undershirts and their color if you have not noticed.

Since sleeves are a new phenomenon in the last 5 to 7 years or so and head bands hardly were even worn for a long stretch, trying to regulate them is equivalent to me as trying to say that everyone should wear a certain color socks. Players have been wearing undershirts for a much longer time and the rule as applied to what can be worn for a longer period of time. And I will never understand why you keep talking about undershirts when we are not going to resolve anything here. Even with sleeves and head bands, the NF does not care what we think. So why is is so important I not ignore your issue? Please do not answer that, I am not wanting an answer.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

...why do they care what color stuff is?

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... disagreement about something I was not addressing or no one was addressing in this conversation.

I have already apologized for assuming that you disagreed with a color restriction on undershirts. Accept it, or not.

I'm not "no one". I find that very disrespectful, and belittling. I was addressing this issue in the conversation (thread).

And, "Stuff" can include undershirts. That's the entire basis for my posts in this thread. Maybe you should have been clearer that, "Stuff", was only referring to items mentioned in the new rule change.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I have already apologized for assuming that you disagreed with a color restriction on undershirts. Accept it, or not.

I'm not "no one". I find that very disrespectful, and belittling.

Well you are a no one in this process, just like I am a no one. Nothing we say here is going to change what the NF committees do or do not do. Even if someone reads this site, I doubt the vast majority of the committee knows this place exists or is going to vote or not vote based on such a small sample of officials. So yes, you are a no one to them.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

And, "Stuff" can include undershirts. That's the entire basis for my posts in this thread. Maybe you should have been clearer that "Stuff" was only referring to items mentioned in the new rule change.

Billy, was my comments directed at you at all? And I have not only officiated in Chicago. I happen to belong to an area that is larger than most of your state and certainly do have experiences well outside of Chicago from an officiating and living point of view. But you constantly reference Chicago in your comments towards me and you wonder why I am a little annoyed? Is anyone having an issue with what I have said about this? Nope. Sounds to me you are fighting a one man crusade. But that is typical for you. Not sure why I should be surprised.

Peace