[Macaw]

"As far as this incident, contrary to what most think on here, what the officials did was reasonable. It was the school district that had the responsibility to notify the state association and ask for a waiver."

Neg.

In fact if someone does not have feet you do not need a waiver to excuse their lack of shoes. I've been coaching for way too long (and been a reasonable person for way to long) to know this is the case.

A handicapped player would have to do something really egredious like drive a huge electric wheelchair onto the field before any reasonable official would say something.

I mean telling a blind person with a seeing eye dog "NO DOGS ALLOWED" is less offensive than what this guy did. He basically punished a kid for not having all the right body parts to host all the right pads.

[1L]

>>does not have feet you do not need a waiver to excuse their lack of shoes<<

If you READ the Federation football rule book, you will find, under REQUIRED equipment, shoes. The rule doesn't anticipate this situation, obviously, but its the same question I asked the other coach: what rules do you follow, and what do you ignore? Further, are YOU willing to indemnify the officials if they don't follow a particular rule that you don't think should be followed in a narrow case, and they get sued?

Everyone has this supposed holier than thou BS common sense until its their BUTT on the line.