Quote:
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
Wed May 20, 2009, 05:23pm
Similar Threads
Hybrid Mode
