Federation Quarterly FB POE's

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

What NFHS is telling us is some officials are not doing their job for whatever reason. I personally know a group of officials that pretty much let everything go because to enforce the rules might mean they don't get a playoff game.

You'll see

Originally Posted by SC Ump

I'm sure you're talking about the guy last week, as in "The guy last week said it was okay."

And I've told the guys on my crew - we don't want to be the crew in, "The crew last week said it was okay."

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by SC Ump

I'm sure you're talking about the guy last week, as in "The guy last week said it was okay."

I have NEVER met that guy. Can't find him for the life of me!

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I have NEVER met that guy. Can't find him for the life of me!

I know the guy. He lives around here, has some teeth missing, brews his own liquor, showers sparingly, and last touched a rule book in 1974.

[ajmc]

The problem is really not somone trying to fake you out with an updated version of a basic excuse we've all used, in one form or another, since early childhood. The problem is being dumb enough tho buy into this transparent nonsense.

"He said it was legal/illegal last week" is right up there with, "the dog ate my homework" or, "the devil made me do it".

[Reffing Rev.]

In western chicago suburbs we used to get game films for training purposes.

We had a local meeting one Wednesday and watched some film from the previous week. I paid close attention because we had one of those 2 teams the following Saturday. We talked at length about an illegal formation they used and got flagged for.

Sure enough it happened:
Saturday, we flagged their illegal formation. I was on their sideline. Coach was screaming it was legal last week. Our R walked over and said, "Coach, I saw the game film from last week, Bob Smith, flagged it then and we're going to flag it tonight."

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Welpe

You're going to have to ask the Federation about why they consider those things to be sportsmanship issues, I'm simply conveying their reasoning for prohibiting those things.

So you're guessing that they're matters of sportsmanship, but you can't see why they would be?

One poster said they don't just sit around and cook these rules up from nothing, but sometimes I wonder! Usually something like this comes up from state ***'ns. Were there some state ***'ns that had regulations on taped belts and face paint that Fed looked at and decided to adopt as rules? Could it have been a way of banning certain gang insignia without appearing discriminatory (at the cost of appearing weird & inscrutable)?

Robert in the Bronx

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

So you're guessing that they're matters of sportsmanship, but you can't see why they would be?

No I'm not guessing, I'm taking the Federation at their word based upon POEs, case book plays, etc.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Welpe

No I'm not guessing, I'm taking the Federation at their word based upon POEs, case book plays, etc.

You mean they say somewhere, "...because this is a matter of sportsmanship."?

Is anyone else the least bit curious about these provisions? Seems like there must be a story there.

Robert in the Bronx

[ajmc]

Nothing more than a personal opinion (of questionable value at best), but it seems like when given the choice of opening a door, and then dealing with a never ending possibility of what might develop behind that door, or keeping it shut, NFHS decisions often fall on the side of keeping the door closed. Which keeps things a lot simpler.

I suspect opening the door behind, "uniform adornments" could generate a discussion that would never get close to ending, whereas currently written the rules prohibit ANYTHING/EVERYTHING other than a 4" x 12" to
12" x 18" white, absorbent towel and an absorbent "sweatband worn beginning at the base of the thumb and extending no more than 3 inches below the elbow."

That makes our job that much easier.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Nothing more than a personal opinion (of questionable value at best), but it seems like when given the choice of opening a door, and then dealing with a never ending possibility of what might develop behind that door, or keeping it shut, NFHS decisions often fall on the side of keeping the door closed. Which keeps things a lot simpler.

I suspect opening the door behind, "uniform adornments" could generate a discussion that would never get close to ending, whereas currently written the rules prohibit ANYTHING/EVERYTHING other than a 4" x 12" to 12" x 18" white, absorbent towel and an absorbent "sweatband worn beginning at the base of the thumb and extending no more than 3 inches below the elbow."

That makes our job that much easier.

Actually I think it makes it harder. The only part about it that's easier is that effectively they've made a bunch of things mandatory to wear (relatively easy to check), a very few things optional (ditto), and are saying anything else worn or even painted on is illegal (the hard part), which means they've taken the judgement out of it. OK, so if you find something in the latter category (not listed, so must be adornment), it's easy to determine that it's illegal. But the hard part is detecting it, when it could be literally anything, anywhere! You have to determine whether a stripe is stitched on (legal) or stuck on (illegal). A tattoo I'm guessing is legal because it's not worn, but the same design painted on would be illegal. Tape over a cut I'm sure would be legal, but if the skin under it is already healed or wasn't hurt to begin with, illegal.

So if this wasn't a response to a specific problem, seems to me Fed just uselessly complicated your job. If you find an item of "adornment" that isn't dangerous, you have the ready excuse that it's automatically illegal, but the problem is that you'll surely find some and not find others, which isn't going to make anybody happy. And to make it a point of emphasis on top of all that, I've got to wonder what's going on.

Although Fed football rules are used by other leagues, they were primarily devised for high school students, and so they're inextricably entangled in the wider setting of adult administrators (teachers, coaches, officials, others) over adolescents in schools. We've heard of all sorts of ridiculous "zero tolerance" rules in schools that were adopted originally because of situations that called for some kind of rule, but then were written in a CYA type way that attempted to take all judgement out of the hands of teachers, etc. to avoid charges of "discrimination". Could this not be such a case, where some football players adopted gang insignia or something else that could not be proven to have a certain nasty meaning, but which could be taken as such? So that rules were adopted and sent up the line (in this case to NFSHSA) that operated to outlaw any kind of "message" being sent by such means? Except of course whatever "message" might be embedded in the official uniform adopted by the school, but then it's the adults' fault!

So maybe Fed expects you to get the word locally to watch out for certain insignia, but they can't just come out and say so.

Robert in the Bronx

[ajmc]

Forgive me Robert, but even idle nitpicking can be extended "too far".