2022 POE's- Illegal Equipment

[CalhounLJ]

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.

I think they still don’t understand the question. The question is not “should we be fashion or uniform police.” The question is, why are eye shade, and play cards considered illegal equipment when improperly worn, rather than just being improperly worn legal equipment.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[NVFOA_Ump]

I believe that the answer to the question is simply the difference between MANDATORY ie: minimum uniform requirements including safety related equipment and OPTIONAL equipment  ie: not required and not safety related.  Mandatory equipment by definition in the rules MUST also be worn legally.  Optional equipment is only legal when worn as specified by rule and is not safety related.

[HLinNC]

I think they still don’t understand the question.

 

As ARS sang, "I'm not gonna let it bother me tonight."  The state clinic is in 12 days.  Dollar to a donut says it won't even be mentioned.

[CalhounLJ]

I believe that the answer to the question is simply the difference between MANDATORY ie: minimum uniform requirements including safety related equipment and OPTIONAL equipment  ie: not required and not safety related.  Mandatory equipment by definition in the rules MUST also be worn legally.  Optional equipment is only legal when worn as specified by rule and is not safety related.

Think you’re probably on the right track, except your theory has some holes. For example, wearing a play card improperly (on the belt) is a safety issue.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[PABJNR]

Perhaps the auxiliary equipment is only legal when worn as intended or prescribed, i.e. eye black in a single stroke, when not worn in this manner it is not legal…or illegal. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AlUpstateNY]

Perhaps the auxiliary equipment is only legal when worn as intended or prescribed, i.e. eye black in a single stroke, when not worn in this manner it is not legal…or illegal. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In the interest of avoiding animal cruelty and beating this poor horse further, might we eliminate Woke wordsmithing efforts and simply follow  the existing Rule; NFHS:1-5-3: Illegal equipment: No players shall participate while wearing equipment, which in the opinion of the Umpire is dangerous, confusing or inappropriate.  Illegal equipment shall ALWAYS INCLUDE, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO: b3: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.

(Sort of suggests, the UMPIRE (subject to possible assistance /consultation with/from the Referee) actually is the designated "Beholder").

[PABJNR]

First - I am not "wordsmithing"....the point of the topic pertains to why...not what the rule says.  Everyone seems to grasp what the rule says, buit are interested in the rationale for the difference between illegal and improperly worn equipment.  My point was it seems improperly worn equipment only applies to mandatory equipment.  If equipment which is not mandatory is not correctly utilized, such as incorrect towels, it is deemed illegal instead of improperly worn.  The question is does anyone know the rationale for the difference.   

Second - I find it amusing you would call out someone for "wordsmithing".  Do you read your posts?  I find them mostly to be overly worded, without saying anything.  I'll even throw this in...just for you...to make a point...bold, CAPS, italic and to prove my point BOLD CAPS WITH ITALIC.  Not to be outdone here is an underline.

[AlUpstateNY]

First - I am not "wordsmithing"....the point of the topic pertains to why...not what the rule says.  Everyone seems to grasp what the rule says, buit are interested in the rationale for the difference between illegal and improperly worn equipment.  My point was it seems improperly worn equipment only applies to mandatory equipment.  If equipment which is not mandatory is not correctly utilized, such as incorrect towels, it is deemed illegal instead of improperly worn.  The question is does anyone know the rationale for the difference.   

Second - I find it amusing you would call out someone for "wordsmithing".  Do you read your posts?  I find them mostly to be overly worded, without saying anything.  I'll even throw this in...just for you...to make a point...bold, CAPS, italic and to prove my point BOLD CAPS WITH ITALIC.  Not to be outdone here is an underline.

Sorry, I understood "the point of the topic" was more to understand and explain  the "why", which has already been decided, rather than reinvent, modify or confuse it.  The graphic emphasis on certain details was intended to simply highlight parts of the existing rule that seem to underscore and confirm, the  purpose and intent, of what has already been decided.  The additional POE, adding specific, serious consequences seems designed and intended to help motivate and  insure cooperation and compliance.

[stevegarbs]

<snip>   

Second - I find it amusing you would call out someone for "wordsmithing".  Do you read your posts?  I find them mostly to be overly worded, without saying anything.  I'll even throw this in...just for you...to make a point...bold, CAPS, italic and to prove my point BOLD CAPS WITH ITALIC.  Not to be outdone here is an underline.

POTD.

[refjeff]

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?

Two years ago, about week 7-8, I sent their best running back out with a bandana hanging out of his helmet.  (Ohio wants that enforced and the player had been warned.)  Two plays later I sent their best lineman out for the same thing.  The HC had a meltdown, directed at his players, not me.

Some coaches don't care.  Some don't want to take the time.  Some don't want to be the bad guy.  I've heard that more than once.

But if officials had enforced the rule weeks 1 & 2 I would not have had to late in the season.

[refjeff]

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.

And another official tells him the same thing next week, and the week after, and the week after ...