The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Fri Mar 08, 2013, 12:48pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 1,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
That's it. Same one. The middle picture is definitely thinner than the one posted in the OP... but the device in the middle picture is definitely longer than 2 inches, and is definitely a hair control device (and actually extends FURTHER than the one in the OP).

I think we can agree the one shown in the OP is not a plastic visor, is not a bandana, and is not a hair bead.
The item in the middle picture looks more like a conventional headband to me. It wraps around and connects in the back of the back and is being worh near the brow in front, unlike the hard plastic item pictured above.

I'd have to say that headbands and hair control devices must fall into two separate categories. If they were one and the same, then the item in the NFHS picture definitely wouldn't be legal, as it is longer than two inches.

The rule itself seems to distinguish between the two. It refers to "headwear" as items like caps, visors, headbands and ribbons. For "items used to control the hair" it references "bobby pins, barrettes and hair clips".

Which category do you think the item Manny posted falls under?

(I have now spent more time playing fashion police than I hope to have to spend all season!)

Last edited by BretMan; Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 12:51pm.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Fri Mar 08, 2013, 01:08pm
Moderator M-800
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by BretMan View Post
I'd have to say that headbands and hair control devices must fall into two separate categories. If they were one and the same, then the item in the NFHS picture definitely wouldn't be legal, as it is longer than two inches.
Fair point. And perhaps I'm wrong about this device's legality.

I will say this though - the mere fact that you have to ask me which category it belongs in, and the fact that I might answer that question differently from you or some other umpire, tells me that NFHS has fallen down on the job here in failing to define it for us. If they are treated differently, the categories need definition.

(BTW - the answer to your question is "I don't know", as one could support it's inclusion in either category.)
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Fri Mar 08, 2013, 03:32pm
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
I will say this though - the mere fact that you have to ask me which category it belongs in, and the fact that I might answer that question differently from you or some other umpire, tells me that NFHS has fallen down on the job here in failing to define it for us. If they are treated differently, the categories need definition.
It seems to me (and I obviously could be wrong) that the overarching concern here is one of safety. Why else would NFHS limit hard plastic or metal items to being flat and two inches or less?

So regardless if they are "hair control devices" or "headwear" or whatever, all things made of a hard, inflexible material should be prohibited. Or am I wrong here?
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Fri Mar 08, 2013, 03:51pm
Moderator M-800
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A View Post
It seems to me (and I obviously could be wrong) that the overarching concern here is one of safety. Why else would NFHS limit hard plastic or metal items to being flat and two inches or less?

So regardless if they are "hair control devices" or "headwear" or whatever, all things made of a hard, inflexible material should be prohibited. Or am I wrong here?
You have a point... then again, what's more dangerous, the thing in the OP, or a 1.99" hairclip with a semi-pointed end.

Honestly - if we have heads conking... the HEAD is more dangerous than any of these items we're talking about.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Headbands Zoochy Basketball 13 Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:54pm
Headbands at BC Scrapper1 Basketball 1 Sun Feb 18, 2007 08:50am
Headbands Oklahoma official Basketball 13 Thu Nov 10, 2005 04:09am
headbands Ron Pilo Basketball 4 Thu Dec 19, 2002 04:23pm
Headbands RookieDude Basketball 29 Thu Dec 19, 2002 12:20am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:51pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1