High School girl covers up earings with tape...

[SQUACKEE]

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschoo ... 53602.html

[26mi235]

My daughter had to do that playing youth soccer, even when it was just a stud.

[SQUACKEE]

My daughter had to do that playing youth soccer, even when it was just a stud.

Common sense is not so common.

[Pego]

With the risk of being booed out of the room, I do agree with a no-jewelry rules for all sports. Obviously, ear studs are no big deal, but once you start writing in exceptions, you open up an endless sea of trouble.

[SQUACKEE]

With the risk of being booed out of the room, I do agree with a no-jewelry rules for all sports. Obviously, ear studs are no big deal, but once you start writing in exceptions, you open up an endless sea of trouble.

BOOOOOO! Seriously though, in this case, should she have been disqualified?

[26mi235]

With the risk of being booed out of the room, I do agree with a no-jewelry rules for all sports. Obviously, ear studs are no big deal, but once you start writing in exceptions, you open up an endless sea of trouble.

The problem with taking earrings out is that it can cause a medical problem (?), although minor. Also, since track is a non-contact sport, what is the reason for not allowing studs. Studs seems to be a well-defined item and is a relatively easy boundary to draw.

[Pego]

With the risk of being booed out of the room, I do agree with a no-jewelry rules for all sports. Obviously, ear studs are no big deal, but once you start writing in exceptions, you open up an endless sea of trouble.

BOOOOOO! Seriously though, in this case, should she have been disqualified?

No, as far as I am concerned, covered with a tape is the same as being removed, no danger. The official acted heavyhanded, to use a socially permissible word.

[Cooter Brown]

Do any other sports regularly disqualify competitors for the similar wardrobe violations or are we the only sport that's gone full retard?

[Marlow]

No, as far as I am concerned, covered with a tape is the same as being removed, no danger. The official acted heavyhanded, to use a socially permissible word.

No he didn't. That's the way the rule is meant to be applied, and he did what he was supposed to. The COACH is to be blamed because all coaches SHOULD know that covering up jewelry is ALSO against the rules. I explain this explicitly to my athletes.

I don't always agree with the many stupid HS rules we have, but it is our job to COMPLY with said rules until we can change them. Because of my fellow coaches' complaints the rule was changed last year from an auto-DQ on first notice, to a warning, followed by the DQ on the next instance. Once she HAD run the race, it was too late. Had her coach simply known the rule and imparted it to his team, this would not have happened. Stop blaming the messenger!!

[TN1965]

...since track is a non-contact sport, what is the reason for not allowing studs. Studs seems to be a well-defined item and is a relatively easy boundary to draw.

Track is a non-contact sport? Ask Morgan Uceny or Gelete Burka about that.
(I understand this girl was competing in 1600m.)

[Peter Michaelson]

Marlow:

I admire your attention to detail and dedication to your athletes.

You say the coach should have known the rules and told the athlete not to wear jewelry, and that after the race was over, it was too late for the official to do anything but DQ the kid. I am wondering why the official isn't at fault for not noticing the tape when the kid lined up (and issuing a warning) but only after the race was over?

To carry things to an absurd level, suppose the official didn't notice the tape until a year from now when he happens to look at a photo of the kid. Is it too late to DQ the kid? Or do we stick with "rules are rules"?

[Peter Michaelson]

Let's get more absurd. Do you DQ for pierced scrotum jewelry? It would not normally be visible or detected unless the TSA was officiating. The kid's jewelry was not visible! To call it "unsporstmanlike conduct" says something about intent, yet the kid's intent was to comply with the rules, not to cheat or gain an advantage over her competitors.

[Marlow]

1. I am wondering why the official isn't at fault for not noticing the tape when the kid lined up (and issuing a warning) but only after the race was over?
2. To carry things to an absurd level, suppose the official didn't notice the tape until a year from now when he happens to look at a photo of the kid. Is it too late to DQ the kid? Or do we stick with "rules are rules"?

1. An official SHOULD do preventative officiating, but it is always the responsibility of the athlete to comply with the rules.
2. No DQ. 30 minutes after the results are posted they are official and unalterable (unless there is a 'clerical error').

Let's get more absurd. Do you DQ for pierced scrotum jewelry? It would not normally be visible or detected unless the TSA was officiating. The kid's jewelry was not visible! To call it "unsporstmanlike conduct" says something about intent, yet the kid's intent was to comply with the rules, not to cheat or gain an advantage over her competitors.

No, non-visible jewelry is 'acceptable' simply because an official cannot ask an athlete to expose themselves. Case in point: If a girl has a navel ring, and even if the official can see the bump through her shirt, he cannot DQ her unless he sees it. If, during a competitive effort, her midriff is exposed, then she CAN be 'warned' and/or DQed.

PLEASE do not ask me to defend these rules - many are STOOPID, but as long as they are the rules, athletes must comply.

[Peter Michaelson]

OK, I don't understand the definition of exposed. To me, tape on earrings = not exposed.

[Marlow]

OK, I don't understand the definition of exposed. To me, tape on earrings = not exposed.

Not exposed by a deliberate attempt to circumvent the rules (addressed as such in the rules). If an athlete had on bracelets and necklaces, but had a long-sleeved turtleneck on, over them . . . legal.

I ask again - do NOT put me in a position to defend these rules; I can merely tell you what the rules stipulate.

[Blues]

No, as far as I am concerned, covered with a tape is the same as being removed, no danger. The official acted heavyhanded, to use a socially permissible word.

No he didn't. That's the way the rule is meant to be applied, and he did what he was supposed to. The COACH is to be blamed because all coaches SHOULD know that covering up jewelry is ALSO against the rules. I explain this explicitly to my athletes.

I don't always agree with the many stupid HS rules we have, but it is our job to COMPLY with said rules until we can change them. Because of my fellow coaches' complaints the rule was changed last year from an auto-DQ on first notice, to a warning, followed by the DQ on the next instance. Once she HAD run the race, it was too late. Had her coach simply known the rule and imparted it to his team, this would not have happened. Stop blaming the messenger!!

I have to agree with Marlow. Don't blame the messenger. The KSHSAA uniform regulations can be seen at the link below.

And like Pego, I agree with prohibiting jewelry. I'd rather err on the side of caution for safety's sake.

http://www.kshsaa.org/Public/Track/PDF/ ... iforms.pdf

[Peter Michaelson]

The rules seem inconsistent. The part 6 beginning, "Penalty: For the first violation..." seem to allow the official to say "OK, you had jewelry under the tape, get rid of the jewelry before your next event" but the part 7 gets specific about tape.

[Tuariki]

Obviously Jim Cross and those who made this rule in the first place were valedictorian graduates of the Athletics NZ Graduate School of how to create mind bogglingly stupid rules for TnF that have the sole purpose to drive young athletes to some other form of sport or recreation.

Clark knew she couldn't run with her earrings showing, so she did what most athletes do to make jewelry less conspicuous: She covered them up with tape. As it turns out, that decision was the worst she could have made. As soon as Clark finished the event, a track official, Jim Cross, approached her and asked what was under her tape. When she admitted that the tape was covering an earring, Cross promptly judged that she was exhibiting "unsportsmanlike conduct," a ruling that disqualified the Russell (Kan.) High runner from the entire meet; Clark was scheduled to run the 3,200 meters later in the afternoon.

Although she appears to be too honourable a girl to have done this, what she should have done is to have refused to answer Jim Cross' question. I presume even Kansas TnF HS officials haven't yet got around to making it a "crime" to refuse to answer such a question. And if she had refused then all Jim Cross would have had was a suspicion of a crime having been committed. And in order for him to then obtain the proof of his supicion he would have had to commit criminal assault.

Let's get more absurd. Do you DQ for pierced scrotum jewelry? It would not normally be visible or detected unless the TSA was officiating. The kid's jewelry was not visible! To call it "unsporstmanlike conduct" says something about intent, yet the kid's intent was to comply with the rules, not to cheat or gain an advantage over her competitors.

I guess we might now see all the Jim Cross' of the world lining up and demanding to check out the family jewellery - just in case they have committed and covered up unsportsmanlike conduct down there.

I am not sure what competitve advantage Peter Michaelson was concerned about in this form of unsportsmanlike conduct. But La Shawn Merrit could probably shed some light on this subject as this may be the reason he went for the chemical advantage for his nether region rather then the De Beers/Klondike piercing solution.

[kevinsdad]

What if high school track officials were traffic cops. Driving 27 in a 25 zone--ticket. Parked 13 inches from the curb--ticket. A little late with that turn signal--ticket. No discretion, nor common sense applied, just there to mete out fines. Life would be hell.

[Daisy]

I do agree with a no-jewelry rules for all sports.

For all sports?

[lonewolf]

I do agree with a no-jewelry rules for all sports. .

I agree...
Among the myriad things I do not understand is why anyone of either sex pierces their body in any place visible or hidden and inserts a foreign object.

[Marlow]

Among the myriad things I do not understand is why anyone of either sex pierces their body in any place visible or hidden and inserts a foreign object.

Im wid ya dere, Pops, but I'm afeared we're vastly outnumbered by the self-mutilaters!

[TN1965]

The rules seem inconsistent. The part 6 beginning, "Penalty: For the first violation..." seem to allow the official to say "OK, you had jewelry under the tape, get rid of the jewelry before your next event" but the part 7 gets specific about tape.

Just like Watergate (or Monicagate for that matter), it is the cover up, not the original "crime" that gets you into a real trouble.