[billbears]

That is so wrong...but I couldn't help laughing.

I applaud the kid for what he's done. If the rule was established specifically to get him off the field though, the rule should be thrown out. However if the rule has been there in the past then I don't see the kid has a viable outlet

[TXBubba]

So do you think the rule might only apply to people that have knees and feet to protect?

[Macaw]

If the rule was established specifically to get him off the field though, the rule should be thrown out. However if the rule has been there in the past then I don't see the kid has a viable outlet

Yes, football rules say you have to have shoes and kneepads... but the kid has no feet or knees! How about a little common sense here.

[LibertarianInExile]

I agree, and I'm torn.

On one hand, the rule probably clearly states all players must wear shoes and knee pads. That means all players, even if they don't have legs to put `em on. It'd be ridiculous to figure out where he'd wear `em, and it'd probably be twenty minutes until the conference changed its rules if he threaded the shoes and knee pads into his jersey. So part of me thinks that he should have just done that and let them force him off the field, then made the conference change the rules. That would stop whiny liberal types from trying to work into some other sort of interpretation as well. "Well, that legless kid doesn't have to wear knee pads, and my kid gets a rash when he does..."

On the other hand, it's common sense for referees to exercise discretion in enforcing the rules. How could a ref be this stupid as to not see the result? Why would any damnfool ref subject himself to this kind of humiliation--as he unquestionably was for such a silly letter-of-the-law enforcement action?

I think it comes down to those who would prefer the former outcome are strict interpretationists, damn the consequences, and those who would prefer the latter are pragmatist conservatives. I think I'll take the former, ridiculous as the idea of forcing the kid to wear useless shoes and pads may be. Better to make the law clear and specifically applicable.

And btw, the rule is stupid in the first place. It's a typical rule imposed to protect people from themselves. Who is hurt by a failure to use knee pads and shoes but the dumbass kid who doesn't wear `em, anyway? Sounds like a rule imposed by goodie-goodies.