2022 POE's- Illegal Equipment

[HLinNC]

I got my new NFHS rule book packet from the state office in the mail on Friday.  I've skimmed through the new stuff but one item caught my eye.

Under this year's POE's - Legal Uniforms & Equipment - there is this paragraph.  "Any time a player is found to be participating with illegal equipment, the player is to be removed from the game AND (emphasis mine) the head coach should be penalized for unsportsmanlike conduct.  Examples of illegal equipment but are not limited to: Eye shade that is not a solid stroke or includes words.......; eye shields that are not clear.......; play cards not worn on the wrist or arm;........"

The previous paragraph gives examples of "improperly worn equipment" such as knee pads not covering the knee, undershirts not tucked in, etc.  As eye shade, eye shields, and play cards, are all legal equipment that are also being improperly worn in the POE's example, I'm not able discerning the difference.

When the rule changed to just sending players off, I was of the opinion that it wasn't really a huge penalty and that the coaches took it no more seriously than in the past during our "are you players legally equipped" portion of the pre-game conference.

I realize that each state will instruct their officials on what they want called but I can see a real issue on this for those who may decide to take a strict version of the POE into account.

Am I missing something?

[AlUpstateNY]

I got my new NFHS rule book packet from the state office in the mail on Friday.  I've skimmed through the new stuff but one item caught my eye.

Under this year's POE's - Legal Uniforms & Equipment - there is this paragraph.  "Any time a player is found to be participating with illegal equipment, the player is to be removed from the game AND (emphasis mine) the head coach should be penalized for unsportsmanlike conduct.  Examples of illegal equipment but are not limited to: Eye shade that is not a solid stroke or includes words.......; eye shields that are not clear.......; play cards not worn on the wrist or arm;........"

The previous paragraph gives examples of "improperly worn equipment" such as knee pads not covering the knee, undershirts not tucked in, etc.  As eye shade, eye shields, and play cards, are all legal equipment that are also being improperly worn in the POE's example, I'm not able discerning the difference.

When the rule changed to just sending players off, I was of the opinion that it wasn't really a huge penalty and that the coaches took it no more seriously than in the past during our "are you players legally equipped" portion of the pre-game conference.

I realize that each state will instruct their officials on what they want called but I can see a real issue on this for those who may decide to take a strict version of the POE into account.

Am I missing something?

Haven't received the new books yet, but it sounds like the NFHS may be trying to differentiate between " improperly worn equipment", which can and should be immediately corrected if and when it may become improper (through use) and "prohibited equipment" that should NEVER be worn to begin with, and are laying the responsibility for the latter directly on the shoulders of the Head Coach, which seems both practical & appropriate.

Some time ago, when walking through the locker area on the way to our dressing room, a fully dressed, pumped up player, with copious amounts of "artistic" eye shadow on, wished us "Luck" . I thanked him and suggested, "it was too bad he wouldn't be able to play that night".  He responded (politely) "Huh, what did I mean".  I simply explained, "Not with that "stuff" on your face.  Later, during the warm up on the field, I sought him out and noticing the "stuff" had been removed, returned his "Good luck tonight" salutation, and the band played on.

[CalhounLJ]

Haven't received the new books yet, but it sounds like the NFHS may be trying to differentiate between " improperly worn equipment", which can and should be immediately corrected if and when it may become improper (through use) and "prohibited equipment" that should NEVER be worn to begin with, and are laying the responsibility for the latter directly on the shoulders of the Head Coach, which seems appropriate.

A play card is not a prohibited item when worn correctly.  Neither is eye shade.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[AlUpstateNY]

A play card is not a prohibited item when worn correctly.  Neither is eye shade.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

As, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", so is eye shadow that is overly artistic, or excessive. Often, just a little bit of  subtle "preventive officiating" can eliminate unnecessary problems.

[HLinNC]

 Both paragraphs in their POE are legal items of equipment that are being improperly worn.  It has nothing to do with "beauty in the eye of the beholder" or preventive officiating.  You left out the "God clause" by the way.

[AlUpstateNY]

Both paragraphs in their POE are legal items of equipment that are being improperly worn.  It has nothing to do with "beauty in the eye of the beholder" or preventive officiating.  You left out the "God clause" by the way.

Actually, God's hands are way to full with really important things to be bothered with silly, or really stupid stuff, so that nonsense is simply best handled by designated "beholders" who are competent enough to understand what "improperly worn" means, if the problem  has somehow escaped being "nipped in the bud" by those held most responsible.  When in doubt you might want to review NFHS:1.5.3.c.3-9.

[CalhounLJ]

As, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", so is eye shadow that is overly artistic, or excessive. Often, just a little bit of  subtle "preventive officiating" can eliminate unnecessary problems.

If the beholder decides the eye shade is overly artistic and or excessive, is that illegal equipment or legal equipment improperly worn?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[stevegarbs]

When it comes to eye shade, during our pre-game "Uniform Police" time, if I see it my mantra has been "Hey, I'm, not THAT guy, but you may run across an official who will tell you that eye black is illegal. The rule says it can only be a plain black stripe under your eye. I'm not telling you to do anything about it right now, just a fair warning for future games." I feel it accomplishes the dual purpose of letting the kid know about a rule he clearly doesn't know, and maybe a little humanization of me not being an evil ogre in stripes. Unless he has some derogatory expression somehow written across his face that opponents can see, I don't give two shittes about what he has on his face.


I apply similar leniency if a player has a single number written on his shoe or maybe wrist tape, as some kind of honorarium to another player. But anything beyond that I make him take it off or cover it up. I am much more concerned about proper pads being worn.


Your mileage may vary.

[AlUpstateNY]

When it comes to eye shade, during our pre-game "Uniform Police" time, if I see it my mantra has been "Hey, I'm, not THAT guy, but you may run across an official who will tell you that eye black is illegal. The rule says it can only be a plain black stripe under your eye. I'm not telling you to do anything about it right now, just a fair warning for future games." I feel it accomplishes the dual purpose of letting the kid know about a rule he clearly doesn't know, and maybe a little humanization of me not being an evil ogre in stripes. Unless he has some derogatory expression somehow written across his face that opponents can see, I don't give two shittes about what he has on his face.I apply similar leniency if a player has a single number written on his shoe or maybe wrist tape, as some kind of honorarium to another player. But anything beyond that I make him take it off or cover it up. I am much more concerned about proper pads being worn.
Your mileage may vary.

Never thought, "this is a hill worth dying on".  Haven't yet seen the 2022 POE language, but what's been stated sounds like added emphasis has been placed on Head Coaches to see that this type of nonsense never leaves the locker room.  However, never to underestimate the creativity of the American teenager, should one slip by the most observant HC, simply advising the HC and allowing him to make the necessary adjustment, might well be more prudent than an USC flag.  A well placed, "ounce of prevention is still usually better than a pound of cure".

[east louis]

key word is SHOULD be penalized & not SHALL be penalized,so you have some leeway in dealing with HC --my 2 cents

[CalhounLJ]

I got my new NFHS rule book packet from the state office in the mail on Friday.  I've skimmed through the new stuff but one item caught my eye.

Under this year's POE's - Legal Uniforms & Equipment - there is this paragraph.  "Any time a player is found to be participating with illegal equipment, the player is to be removed from the game AND (emphasis mine) the head coach should be penalized for unsportsmanlike conduct.  Examples of illegal equipment but are not limited to: Eye shade that is not a solid stroke or includes words.......; eye shields that are not clear.......; play cards not worn on the wrist or arm;........"

The previous paragraph gives examples of "improperly worn equipment" such as knee pads not covering the knee, undershirts not tucked in, etc.  As eye shade, eye shields, and play cards, are all legal equipment that are also being improperly worn in the POE's example, I'm not able discerning the difference.

When the rule changed to just sending players off, I was of the opinion that it wasn't really a huge penalty and that the coaches took it no more seriously than in the past during our "are you players legally equipped" portion of the pre-game conference.

I realize that each state will instruct their officials on what they want called but I can see a real issue on this for those who may decide to take a strict version of the POE into account.

Am I missing something?

The question posed by the OP is not whether we should or should not penalize the HC for Eye shade. The question is how to differentiate between eye shade, eye shields, and play cards as being illegal equipment as opposed to improperly worn equipment. Except for the eye shield, it's a legit point, because eye shade properly worn is legal, and a play card properly worn is legal. Yet, when those two items are improperly worn, they become illegal. What's the difference between those and other equipment items that, worn properly are legal, (knee pads, undershirts, etc...,) but when not worn properly, are not illegal, but only improperly worn.

The importance of the question is the difference between simply sending a player off or penalizing the HC.

[TampaSteve]

When it comes to eye shade, during our pre-game "Uniform Police" time, if I see it my mantra has been "Hey, I'm, not THAT guy, but you may run across an official who will tell you that eye black is illegal. The rule says it can only be a plain black stripe under your eye. I'm not telling you to do anything about it right now, just a fair warning for future games." I feel it accomplishes the dual purpose of letting the kid know about a rule he clearly doesn't know, and maybe a little humanization of me not being an evil ogre in stripes. Unless he has some derogatory expression somehow written across his face that opponents can see, I don't give two shittes about what he has on his face.


I apply similar leniency if a player has a single number written on his shoe or maybe wrist tape, as some kind of honorarium to another player. But anything beyond that I make him take it off or cover it up. I am much more concerned about proper pads being worn.


Your mileage may vary.

The thing with uniform police, at least round these parts is: "what if" the State guy is in the stands and/or if it's a TV game "what if" the State is watching this?
Necessary evil is how this topic is thought of round these parts.

Similarly it is how language is generally handled too: could the State guy in the stands hear what I thought I heard?

[AlUpstateNY]

The question posed by the OP is not whether we should or should not penalize the HC for Eye shade. The question is how to differentiate between eye shade, eye shields, and play cards as being illegal equipment as opposed to improperly worn equipment. Except for the eye shield, it's a legit point, because eye shade properly worn is legal, and a play card properly worn is legal. Yet, when those two items are improperly worn, they become illegal. What's the difference between those and other equipment items that, worn properly are legal, (knee pads, undershirts, etc...,) but when not worn properly, are not illegal, but only improperly worn. The importance of the question is the difference between simply sending a player off or penalizing the HC.

Still only have the 2021 NFHS Rule/Case books to go by.  There are 6+ pages of specifics in the 2021 Rule Book describing  and/or what what is mandatory, Legal, Illegal or may become illegal.

 NFHS: 1-5 (2021 version) provides very specific details, "When any required player equipment is missing or worn improperly," an official's TO SHALL BE declared. If the missing or improperly worn equipment is detected during the down or subsequent dead-ball action related to the down without being directly attributed to a foul by an opponent or is a player is wearing otherwise legal equipment in an illegal manner, the player shall be replaced for at least one down, unless either half-time or overtime intermission occurs.

If proper and legal equipment has become improperly worn through use but prompt repair is possible and does not delay the RFP, for more than 25 seconds, such repair may be made without replacing the player (3-5-2b, 3-5-5b, 3-5-7e, 3-5-10d & 10e )."

Without the 2022 Rule/Case Books for detailed reference, to determine what actual Rule revisions, and/or how new consequences should/should apply, it seems impractical to make final conclusions. without that detail.

[CalhounLJ]

Still only have the 2021 NFHS Rule/Case books to go by.  There are 6+ pages of specifics in the 2021 Rule Book describing  and/or what what is mandatory, Legal, Illegal or may become illegal.

 NFHS: 1-5 (2021 version) provides very specific details, "When any required player equipment is missing or worn improperly," an official's TO SHALL BE declared. If the missing or improperly worn equipment is detected during the down or subsequent dead-ball action related to the down without being directly attributed to a foul by an opponent or is a player is wearing otherwise legal equipment in an illegal manner, the player shall be replaced for at least one down, unless either half-time or overtime intermission occurs.

If proper and legal equipment has become improperly worn through use but prompt repair is possible and does not delay the RFP, for more than 25 seconds, such repair may be made without replacing the player (3-5-2b, 3-5-5b, 3-5-7e, 3-5-10d & 10e )."

Without the 2022 Rule/Case Books for detailed reference, to determine what actual Rule revisions, and/or how new consequences should/should apply, it seems impractical to make final conclusions. without that detail.

The POE in the 2022 book is not a change, it’s a point of emphasis. The issue at hand is discussed in the 2021 book. It has been there for years.

THIS IS FROM THE 2021 RULE BOOK:
1-5-3 c. The following Other Illegal Equipment:

3. Eye shade (grease or no-glare strips or stickers) that is not a solid stroke or includes words, numbers, logos or other symbols within the eye shade.
              *Eye shade worn properly is legal. Worn improperly as described here, it becomes illegal with USC penalty to HC.

8. Play cards not worn on the wrist or arm.
          *Play cards worn properly are legal, but worn improperly become illegal with penalty to HC.

BUT, on the other hand, other equipment such as knee pads, when worn improperly, only warrant a send off.

That’s the question the OP raised. What’s the difference? Why is it that in one situation the equipment becomes illegal, while in the other it’s only improperly worn?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[riffraft]

The thing with uniform police, at least round these parts is: "what if" the State guy is in the stands and/or if it's a TV game "what if" the State is watching this?
Necessary evil is how this topic is thought of round these parts.

Similarly it is how language is generally handled too: could the State guy in the stands hear what I thought I heard?

That is generally my speil. Sorry but the powers that be insist on me being uniform police, so you are going to have to remove the face paint or whatever violation they have.

Personally I hate being the uniform police, but the rules state it so I enforce it for 2 reasons. The upper level has made it clear they want it enforced and I don't want to be the reason next weeks crew gets well they let me have it last Friday.

[AlUpstateNY]

That is generally my speil. Sorry but the powers that be insist on me being uniform police, so you are going to have to remove the face paint or whatever violation they have.

Personally I hate being the uniform police, but the rules state it so I enforce it for 2 reasons. The upper level has made it clear they want it enforced and I don't want to be the reason next weeks crew gets well they let me have it last Friday.

That's a benefit of working at the HS level, you get to help guide players (and some Coaches) away from  developing stupid habits.  Hopefully that helps those working at the "higher levels" deal with a little less silly nonsense.

[SCline]

The POE in the 2022 book is not a change, it’s a point of emphasis. The issue at hand is discussed in the 2021 book. It has been there for years.

THIS IS FROM THE 2021 RULE BOOK:
1-5-3 c. The following Other Illegal Equipment:

3. Eye shade (grease or no-glare strips or stickers) that is not a solid stroke or includes words, numbers, logos or other symbols within the eye shade.
              *Eye shade worn properly is legal. Worn improperly as described here, it becomes illegal with USC penalty to HC.

8. Play cards not worn on the wrist or arm.
          *Play cards worn properly are legal, but worn improperly become illegal with penalty to HC.

BUT, on the other hand, other equipment such as knee pads, when worn improperly, only warrant a send off.

That’s the question the OP raised. What’s the difference? Why is it that in one situation the equipment becomes illegal, while in the other it’s only improperly worn?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Knee pads are mandatory equipment (1-5-1) therefore they can only be worn properly, improperly or missing. And 1-5-6 says that players can’t participate without properly wearing mandatory equipment. That is the difference.

Eye shade is illegal equipment UNLESS it is applied per the rule, it is only in accordance with the rule or not.

Play cards are the same because play cards not on the wrist or arm are immediately illegal equipment. They can not be worn improperly, if they are not worn as specified by rule they are illegal.

[CalhounLJ]

Knee pads are mandatory equipment (1-5-1) therefore they can only be worn properly, improperly or missing. And 1-5-6 says that players can’t participate without properly wearing mandatory equipment. That is the difference.

Eye shade is illegal equipment UNLESS it is applied per the rule, it is only in accordance with the rule or not.

Play cards are the same because play cards not on the on the wrist or arm are immediately illegal equipment. They can not be worn improperly, if they are not worn as specified by rule they are illegal.

Thanks. I’m sure the OP will appreciate the spot on response.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[TampaSteve]

Knee pads are mandatory equipment (1-5-1) therefore they can only be worn properly, improperly or missing. And 1-5-6 says that players can’t participate without properly wearing mandatory equipment. That is the difference.

Eye shade is illegal equipment UNLESS it is applied per the rule, it is only in accordance with the rule or not.

Play cards are the same because play cards not on the wrist or arm are immediately illegal equipment. They can not be worn improperly, if they are not worn as specified by rule they are illegal.

In my opinion the silly nonsense trickles down and that's how/why se see silliness at HS level - because it's on TV.

[Ralph Damren]

I reserve comment on this until I pick up my new rule books. I pick up my new rule books next Tuesday. I probably give my rant/rave/whatever on this POE next Wendesday. In the neantime, all please enjoy the holiday weekend and beware of that ole' Mainer motto : IF YE DRINK A FIFTH ON THE FOURTH, YE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO COME FORTH ON THE FIFTH  ...

HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY TO ALL....

  (50 STATES)olor]

[Ralph Damren]

IMHO, this POE emphasizes the need for a 'walk thru' the teams in pre-game , as these are easily visable. Correct them then ,not  them during the game. I'm considering expanding my pre-game coach's question to : " COACH, ARE ALL YOUR PLAYERS LEGALLY EQUIPTED WITH PROPERLY WORN EYE SHADE, PLAY CARDS AND CLEAR EYE SHIELDS ?"

[fudilligas]

The thing with uniform police, at least round these parts is: "what if" the State guy is in the stands and/or if it's a TV game "what if" the State is watching this?
Necessary evil is how this topic is thought of round these parts.

Similarly it is how language is generally handled too: could the State guy in the stands hear what I thought I heard?

can't tell you the number of times i have watched high school tv games and have seen pants way above the knees....from georgia to ohio....it is not enforced in the miami and ft lauderdale area....when those teams come up to my neck of the woods it always presents a problem....even seen it at the state tourney....more important things to worry about than eye black or different colored towels, or sweatbands around the bicep or calf....just  saying

[AlUpstateNY]

IMHO, this POE emphasizes the need for a 'walk thru' the teams in pre-game , as these are easily visable. Correct them then ,not  them during the game. I'm considering expanding my pre-game coach's question to : " COACH, ARE ALL YOUR PLAYERS LEGALLY EQUIPTED WITH PROPERLY WORN EYE SHADE, PLAY CARDS AND CLEAR EYE SHIELDS ?"

Unfortunately, BAD/STUPID HABITS that are learned early, and then ignored, have been well proven, to ONLY get worse.  Subtly reminding HCs of this NEW POE, (including the penalties THEY might face) seems like a "Gift from God"  and an EASY way to help insure these types of NONSENSE are eliminated BEFORE anything starts.

[HLinNC]

Probably not a bad idea to re-enforce some of the particular problems we see during the "are all your players legally equipped and not wearing any illegal equipment" segment of the show.

This still doesn't answer the basic question of why the NFHS decided to hypothetically split the enforcement of legal equipment being improperly worn into two types on their POE.  I guess I'll just chalk it up to this is what happens when committees work on projects.

[Ralph Damren]

Wish I could take blame  ,but I can't. I  pushed for a POE on 'Pushing the Pile', but I  guess I didn't push hard enough. Once three POE's are chosen, it goes to the Exec. Committee to write 'em up. IMHO, this POE behoves us to pay attention when we do a walk-thru  . IMHO, the three most underused words in America - PLEASE AND THANK YOU-can be used for a much smoothert pre-game....

BAD EXAMPLE: "COACH, YA' GIT THAT EYE- SHADE PROPER ON BIG 'OLE' BUBBA, OR I'LL  ^flagFLAG YA' 7 2 OF 'EM AND YA' GIT OFF OF MA FIELD!"

GOOD EXAMPLE : " Coach could you please have #66 to remove the portion of his eye shade that has his initials, thank you. "