Fed press release link

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by KWH

Again, there is no mystery or shroud of secrecy as only state associations members a rep from the Officials association and a rep from the coaches association make up the federation. In this situation, One (or more) of the member states "cared" and presented a Rule Proposal to not allow advertising on the ball. They defined advertising, it was voted on and adopted. Nothing more, nothing less.

But if they really cared, wouldn't they be more directly effective by getting their own state to adopt such a policy? Or their own league? Or their own school? Why should they care what advertising some other school, maybe across the country, puts on the balls they use? It doesn't affect the game itself.

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

But if they really cared, wouldn't they be more directly effective by getting their own state to adopt such a policy? Or their own league? Or their own school? Why should they care what advertising some other school, maybe across the country, puts on the balls they use? It doesn't affect the game itself.

Well...says you. Others with the responsibility of executing the policy have decided it does affect the game and disagreed with your premise. There will always be a tension between uniformity and delegation to each state. It's entirely reasonable to debate where that line should be...it's entirely unreasonable and a complete waste of time to argue there should be no line.

[JRutledge]

Well even if the NF has put in a rule about advertising that I agree with in principle, but I do feel that the NF worries too much about many things that are really not their concern overall. For example in my state there is a contract with what type of football (or other types of balls/equipment used) and the games are not supposed to be played at least in the playoffs without that specific type of brand being used. Now, wouldn't that be at the real jurisdiction of the state or member what is on their football? I remember when the NF put how many panels should be on the basketball only to have a basketball produced by the licensed sponsor company of our state had produced a basketball with more panels that the rules allowed. I remember that discussion got so silly about what type of basketball could be used only based on the panels on the specific ball. It just seems like the NF gets way into things that they should allow the states to set some standards, just like they do in many other areas. Because if someone has an advertisement on the field or football, what are we going to ultimately do? Are we going to not play the game? I know depending on the issue, we were told to not play the game if the right licensed ball was used, even if we had no other footballs available. But that was the position of the state, not the NF. I have no problem if states set some standards, but the NF comes up with many issues that only create further problems when they are not needed IMO.

Peace

[KWH]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Why should they care what advertising some other school, maybe across the country, puts on the balls they use? It doesn't affect the game itself.

Uniformity and Consistency!

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by KWH

Uniformity and Consistency!

For that they could specify the music to be played at all games.

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

For that they could specify the music to be played at all games.

Is music a directly used game tool used by both teams? This is an absurdity.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by scrounge

Is music a directly used game tool used by both teams? This is an absurdity.

Are the writings on a football a game tool either? They have no effect on how the ball bounces. But the music is going to be more noticed by everyone in the vicinity who isn't deaf.

They were already getting ridiculous with things like this that have no effect on the game when they started meddling with face painting.

And I've noticed the same when it comes to governing bodies of all sorts of games. The rule books keep growing as they keep specifying more details, which is OK when necessary but silly when it gets into matters extraneous to the play of the games themselves, which unfortunately it often does.

[ajmc]

"Face painting" is not always innocuous. At the NFHS level (Interscholastic athletes, and younger) it can easily lead to trash talking, which can often lead to bigger problems. Considering there is no possibility of out-imagining" what the average American teenager can think of, specific restrictions and definite limitations make a lot sense and avoid a LOT of needless arguments.

Music is no exception.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

"Face painting" is not always innocuous. At the NFHS level (Interscholastic athletes, and younger) it can easily lead to trash talking, which can often lead to bigger problems. Considering there is no possibility of out-imagining" what the average American teenager can think of, specific restrictions and definite limitations make a lot sense and avoid a LOT of needless arguments.

Music is no exception.

I hope you know I wasn't serious about the music, but was using it for reduction to absurdity. But you are serious about music issues?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

"Face painting" is not always innocuous. At the NFHS level (Interscholastic athletes, and younger) it can easily lead to trash talking, which can often lead to bigger problems. Considering there is no possibility of out-imagining" what the average American teenager can think of, specific restrictions and definite limitations make a lot sense and avoid a LOT of needless arguments.

Music is no exception.

So could tattoos and that was once a rule from the NF addressing issues with tatoos. I am not sure this was also a football rule, but I remember it in another sport. Thank God that went away very quickly.

Peace