Uniform Rule

04/23/02: Some more info on the Uniform Rule... a message from Hal Harkness (CIF) to Scott Chisam (St Francis)
in regards to the e-mail from Julia Widstrand (Los Altos) that is listed below.

Please DO NOT BE MISINFORMED about the uniform rule. As a rumor is going around.... Mr. Harkness DID NOT SAY it would not be enforced.....please read what he did say. No, Paul, I asked about your request and he said you will be tranferred to Gunn if you wear your sports-bra outfit as threatened.

Scott Chisam



Scott,

At no time did I say the current uniform rule would not be enforced. What I say was in it's current form it doesn't do what it is intended.

Under no circumstances, should an athlete be allowed to compete wearing a jersey that does not cover the waistband of his/her shorts when standing fully erect. Also, the waistband should not be rolled down and shorts should be worn on the hips.

The problem with the current language is that it doesn't address what happens when athletes begin to move, jump or throw and they are no longer standing fully erect. The only provision regarding length is when they are standing fully erect.

Please communicate to any/all coaches in the CCS they are mistaken if they are under the assumption the uniform rule(s) will not be followed.

Thanks,

Hal Harkness

From Julia Widstrand (Los Altos)
Coaches, 

As you all know the new uniform rule has caused some irritaion to those schools in our league who have possible non-conforming jerseys. We have been working hard to figure out exactly what is required for the uniforms to conform, speaking to meet officials and directors everywhere we go.

The following is an email from Hal Harkness answering my concerns. He clearly states that they will "not" be inforcing the tuck-in rule and that there most likely will be a change to the rule for next year. Because he mentions the possible change, I am uncomfortable altering my brand new uniforms without knowing what the change might be. I am sure you all understand how much we have already paid for these and the estimates we have been getting for alterations are significant. If they have to be altered, I prefer to do it once.

Julia



 Subject: 
        Re: Uniform Rule
   Date: 
        Tue, 16 Apr 2002 11:35:52 -0700 (PDT)
   From: 
        Hal Harkness 
     To: 
        [email protected]



Julia,

The National Federation rule as it is now framed is a
joke. To be in compliance, (Rule 4-3-2) "the waistband
of a competitor's shorts shall be worn above the hips,
Bare midriff tops are not acceptable. The jersey
(singlet) must hang below or be tucked into the shorts
or briefs when the competitor is standing erect." We
would prefer the jersey be tucked in, but under the
existing language no one will be D.Q'ed if the jersey
meets the above requirements when the person is
standing erect.

Since I am now on the National Federation Rules
Committee, I am going to address the question of why
we have a uniform length rule. If we wish to cover the
torsos, especially females, what good does it do only
to require coverage when one is standing erect. I
can't think of a single event in Track and Field where
one competes while fully erect. Frankly, I don't
personally care whether we have a rule or not, but if
we do, it must be one that keeps the torso covered
completely during competition. That is usually the
only time athletes are in a high visibility position.

The existing language serves no purpose.


Hal Harkness