d0ublestr0ker0ll Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 The NFL fines players if they wear the wrong kind of socks, so how is this an unfair treatment ? Yeah, fines them...oh watch out an NFL player might lose money. He may become poor. Please. The love for the game is souly what it's about in your youth, and she was taken away from it. You can't fine her. And if you fined her the equivilant to a PRO athlete, you'd have to demand about $5 from her. The common sense thing to do is warn the girl. Not be a heat-seaking missile looking for any kind of violation. These schleps in high school and youth athletics get this great feeling of authority like they're olympic officials. Let it go. If it bothers you go home and crack open your Milwaukee's Best and loosen up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 No it's not. Sacase is right though, it should have been made an issue when she was first racing. Now it looks like someone just shrunk the strike-zone in the 5th inning. I don't see Sacase's posts, but I will agree that it should have been made an issue of at previous meets over the last two years. HOWEVER, the fact that meet directors in the past failed to enforce the rule does not give her the right to break the rules now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Yeah, fines them...oh watch out an NFL player might lose money. He may become poor.Please. The love for the game is souly what it's about in your youth, and she was taken away from it. You can't fine her. And if you fined her the equivilant to a PRO athlete, you'd have to demand about $5 from her. The common sense thing to do is warn the girl. Not be a heat-seaking missile looking for any kind of violation. These schleps in high school and youth athletics get this great feeling of authority like they're olympic officials. Let it go. If it bothers you go home and crack open your Milwaukee's Best and loosen up. The point is, it's documented somewhere that an NFL uniform violation = a fine. I'm assuming it's documented somewhere that a high school uniform violation = a DQ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d0ublestr0ker0ll Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Because the rules didn't state that uniform violations were punished by disqualification. If they did, he should have been kicked out. He was kicked out when he spit. They didn't make an exception because Pittman said something mean to him. As to your second point...sure, I'll bet she's a great kid. But that doesn't mean she can do whatever she wants. We've all learned growing up that rules apply to us too. Does it suck? Sure it does. But if she's as good a kid as it sounds like she is, she'll bounce back. Since that rule wasn't enforced for three years, shouldn't the other directors that missed the rule be punished, also? I mean, they are directors that should know the book better than a 17 year old student with classes, exercise, homework and studying to do. What do they do in this job of theirs that takes 3 years to finally realize that there's a rule in section Q-H 1.099 that states this? Warnings could have been issued. The director has to get off his kings throne and calm down. Rules are in place, but with so many other jobs, sports and laws, flexibility is common. Professional sports and jobs, mind you. Again the busted tail light rule implies. You can book the guy, or you can give him a warning and let him go. Again, she didn't do the equivilant of DUI or capital murder, she had a busted tail light. If a cop gave you the whole 9 yards for something petty while you were on your way to work to give a presentation on something you know you did the best out of every employee, you'd be extremely pissed, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooka Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Rogers said that he knew Kelly was wearing the uniform for religious reasons and that he offered her several options to conform to the rules while still respecting her faith, including placing a plain T-shirt over her unitard and then wearing her team uniform over it.Kelly's mother, Sarah, and Roosevelt Coach Tony Bowden disputed that account. They said officials made several demands of her daughter before Rogers made his decision. "First, they said she had to take her hood off," Sarah Kelly said. "Then, they said she can't have anything with logos displayed. Then, they said she had to turn it inside out. When I told them that there weren't any logos on it, they said she had to put a plain white T-shirt on over it." I don't get it. If she already has the uniform on over it, then why does she need a white t-shirt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 I don't see Sacase's posts, but I will agree that it should have been made an issue of at previous meets over the last two years. HOWEVER, the fact that meet directors in the past failed to enforce the rule does not give her the right to break the rules now. HAHA I got put on the ignore list....That is to funny, wonder how I got there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d0ublestr0ker0ll Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 The point is, it's documented somewhere that an NFL uniform violation = a fine. I'm assuming it's documented somewhere that a high school uniform violation = a DQ. So where are these directors that missed that rule for 3 years? They don't get in trouble? They get PAID to keep on top of this. Again it's a kid with many other things to do than worry about colors on a uniform. Hell, it worked for 3 years, why not today? And that makes a lot of sense that pro athletes get punished less than amatures. I guess kids have to read yet another book (the rule book) on top of everything else, because they watch their heros laugh at $1,500 being taken out for a uniform violation. This director must be a cybornetic rule-enforcer. No heart, just programmed to punish. What a conscience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Since that rule wasn't enforced for three years, shouldn't the other directors that missed the rule be punished, also? I mean, they are directors that should know the book better than a 17 year old student with classes, exercise, homework and studying to do. What do they do in this job of theirs that takes 3 years to finally realize that there's a rule in section Q-H 1.099 that states this?Warnings could have been issued. The director has to get off his kings throne and calm down. Rules are in place, but with so many other jobs, sports and laws, flexibility is common. Professional sports and jobs, mind you. Again the busted tail light rule implies. You can book the guy, or you can give him a warning and let him go. Again, she didn't do the equivilant of DUI or capital murder, she had a busted tail light. If a cop gave you the whole 9 yards for something petty while you were on your way to work to give a presentation on something you know you did the best out of every employee, you'd be extremely pissed, no? Sure, I'd have no problem if they disciplined the directors who weren't enforcing the rules. I'd also have no problem if the rule itself was a little more lax. I just think that if you do something wrong and receive the stated punishment for it...you have no one to blame but yourself. Everyone these days wants to look at all the ifs, ands, buts about everything and just fails to be accountable. That was the jist of what I wrote earlier about kids these days thinking they can argue their way out of everything. It's fine if it works, but if the appropriate ramifications are levied on you when you break a rule, you have to accept that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 So where are these directors that missed that rule for 3 years? They don't get in trouble? They get PAID to keep on top of this. Again it's a kid with many other things to do than worry about colors on a uniform. Hell, it worked for 3 years, why not today?And that makes a lot of sense that pro athletes get punished less than amatures. I guess kids have to read yet another book (the rule book) on top of everything else, because they watch their heros laugh at $1,500 being taken out for a uniform violation. This director must be a cybornetic rule-enforcer. No heart, just programmed to punish. What a conscience. Again, I'm not defending the rule, just the enforcement of it. Let's not change the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUSkinsFan Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 HAHA I got put on the ignore list....That is to funny, wonder how I got there...You said something that offended his delicate sensibilities... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d0ublestr0ker0ll Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Sure, I'd have no problem if they disciplined the directors who weren't enforcing the rules. I'd also have no problem if the rule itself was a little more lax. I just think that if you do something wrong and receive the stated punishment for it...you have no one to blame but yourself. Everyone these days wants to look at all the ifs, ands, buts about everything and just fails to be accountable. That was the jist of what I wrote earlier about kids these days thinking they can argue their way out of everything. It's fine if it works, but if the appropriate ramifications are levied on you when you break a rule, you have to accept that. I agree that you must be held accountable if it's something that common sense would tell you is the wrong thing to do. She's a kid though, with adults around her that probably have the same amount of sense as she does. She will probably take it in to account and change her uniform. But from a third person stand point, what is worse - the enforcement of the rule, or her ignorance towards it? I doubt she is ignorant at all. You have to be extremely tough mentally to do what she does. She sounds so accountable that half her high school probably can't combine to have that accountability. If anything, maybe her track coach should have been talked to. You cannot expect youths to act like complete adults. Because adults that nurture this child can't even keep track of all the rules, apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d0ublestr0ker0ll Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Again, I'm not defending the rule, just the enforcement of it. Let's not change the subject. What was I changing the subject to? I said one thing about pro athletes and kept on with the doushbaggness of the director and the character of this girl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Now that I think about it the director did her a favor. For instance, we had a member of our 4x100m relay team who forgot to take off his watch. After the team won the race they were disqualified for improper uniform. They could have let her run and after she won disqualilfied her. But they told her she needed to change uniforms or she would be disqualified. They gave her a chance to correct the uniform violation. They did much more than they needed to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d0ublestr0ker0ll Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Now that I think about it the director did her a favor. For instance, we had a member of our 4x100m relay team who forgot to take off his watch. After the team won the race they were disqualified for improper uniform. They could have let her run and after she won disqualilfied her. But they told her she needed to change uniforms or she would be disqualified. They gave her a chance to correct the uniform violation. They did much more than they needed to. I can understand a watch because it could cut someone running next to you, but has track become America's Top Model? What is it with being anal about uniforms? I had freakin different colors on my body when I played baseball and football...didn't get kicked out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McMetal Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Rules are rules. They did the right thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Now that I think about it the director did her a favor. For instance, we had a member of our 4x100m relay team who forgot to take off his watch. After the team won the race they were disqualified for improper uniform. They could have let her run and after she won disqualilfied her. But they told her she needed to change uniforms or she would be disqualified. They gave her a chance to correct the uniform violation. They did much more than they needed to.Well if they had let her run, at least there would be a time in the books so that they could dispute the rule later. It's kind of like instant replay where you don't blow the whistle so you can make sure you get it right....I don't really understand why she didn't put a white t-shirt on if that really would have satisfied the rule. A white t-shirt also seems kind of stupid because whatever color her unitard was would probably show through the t-shirt anyways. It sounds like it probably just devolved into a bunch of parents and coaches yelling at each other, and the kid just got screwed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Remembering an incident that occurred during the Gibbs I era. Joe Theisman gets sacked. He has trouble getting up. Official time out, for injury. After being checked out, Joe comes off the field. Backup comes out, play resumes. Backup calls signals, takes snap, runs play. Flag. False start, Redskins. 5 yards, repeat down. Theisman comes out, joins huddle. Calls play. Team lines up. Joe calls signals. Ball is snapped. Whistles. Flags. By rule, after an injury time out, the injured player must sit out one play. Because of the false start penalty, the backup's play didn't happen. Many fans were very irritated at the refs. They all knew that Theisman had sat out a play (just that the play didn't count). They saw him get in the huddle. Why didn't they at least say something? After the game, Joe Gibbs was asked about the penalty. His response was "Hey, folks. I'm a Head Coach in the NFL, It's not the referee's job to tell me that I'm about to break the rules. It's my job to know them, and to have my team prepared to follow them." Her coach should have known the rules, and told her about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 It sounds like it probably just devolved into a bunch of parents and coaches yelling at each other, and the kid just got screwed. This is probably a pretty accurate statement. High School Athetics/politics have become very nasty these days, mostly because of parents and coaches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herrmag Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Larry is spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 What was I changing the subject to? I said one thing about pro athletes and kept on with the doushbaggness of the director and the character of this girl. You spent a paragraph disputing whether it was a good rule or not. To me, that's irrelevant. That's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stophovr6 Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 It's stupid. You can't let a kid do something for 3 years, and then on the fourth at the final hour, say it's against the rules and disqualify her. It's a shamockery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFanAnt Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 You think that they could amend the rule in this case?...but no...this is arrogant policy making at its worst. I mean, its one thing if she was going out in a full burka, or naked, but no...she can't have logo's either (which she didn't...but they had to make the excuse apparently). Its all about conformity isn't it...? Ridiculous. This is just as bad as the rule they made about kids playing tag at school in Colorado. Tell me, when did this nation turn into a bunch of panzies that they have to be so nit picky with this kind of ****? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFanAnt Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 It's stupid. You can't let a kid do something for 3 years, and then on the fourth at the final hour, say it's against the rules and disqualify her. It's a shamockery. Sham is right...someone doesn't want here winning apparently. F'ing sad. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbiggs Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Today its unitards, tomorrow its sharia law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_cavalierman Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Let the girl run.... Bunch of sissies afraid of competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.