stickymitts

Going out in a blaze of glory. That would be awesome if true. And by awesome I mean pathetic. If true, and I'm skeptical, everyone involved should be banned from sports...period. Any level, any country. While most of the time I would say this is a completely and utterly ridiculous accusation after reading this thread, I'm not so sure...

No dog in the fight. However Jaws, you're doing it wrong. Therefore, I can't take you seriously. Coach Siple getting on here and dropping some knowledge is awesome. He isn't hiding from anyone. Guy can flat coach. If it isn't working in your community that says a whole hell of a lot more about your community than him. Just my opinion.

I think you really missed the point. The KHSAA is now saying the school will be held even more accountable than before if incidents do occur. Thus, teach your kids the right way to act after a game.

I can live with that. Similar to the Jimmy V Foundation for Cancer Research. Just cure it. Any form, all forms. Don't care.

I would be the first to donate to the "Guru's Nuts for Nuts" campaign.... Seriously, my donations go to cancer research. Not one specific cancer, just research to find a cure for that dreaded disease. I won't chastise anyone that gives to other organizations that are deserving. Nor will I chastise the amount given. Even if it's the NFL's small percentage donations.

When you ask about a school's policy are you asking if they make it mandatory to wear pink or if they allow it? I'm not sure any school makes it mandatory for a kid to go out and buy pink to wear. I know a ton of schools that would have to buy it for the entire team to make it mandatory and part of their uniform. To the bolded...hahaha

But if the complaint is the amount of money given to the organizations, which is what so many have stated, ribbon's on the helmet give less than buying a $45 pair of gloves. Everyone knows that the NFL isn't going to get into something unless it benefits them. Point is, even if they give a mere 1% of what they sell, it's 1% more than breast cancer research would've received. As for the other cancers, no one has said they are less important. No one, not just the NFL, has taken a stance on any specific form of cancer other than breast cancer. And, again, the thread was started to see what the school's policy was on pink. If it was about an issue with the NFL it would've been moved to the NFL forum.

Read that again and tell me where the issue lies.

Me too. Point was, they haven't always been done and the KHSAA has never made them mandatory. Why the issue now?

Where was your complaint for the last 60 years because they have never "demanded" a postgame handshake. Heck, those on here that played in the early 80's don't even remember postgame handshakes.

This.

You write for SI? "However, yesterday (10/8), at best a poorly worded and at worst, an incomplete, notice was sent from me to the member schools regarding postgame activity."

Football has been played for decades without gloves. Forgive me if I don't see the difference in $25 gloves and $45 gloves that catch the same. You're still spending too much, regardless of price. People are buying it so they are selling it. It's not the companies fault. 90% of what we purchase is a want over a need. No difference here. That's a great way to show support. And that's not harming anything either.

I was thinking about this. While all cancers are terrible, I know MANY more families impacted by breast cancer than other cancers. I have a large family with history of cancer and it still isn't close. Maybe it's just me.

No one makes it mandatory to buy all that stuff. And right or wrong, if only 3% of a 16-18 year olds purchase goes to cancer research that's 3% more than they got 10 years ago.

Tell me again, who is being hurt by wearing pink?

Sounds like, IMO, the underlying issue may be lack of reporting of incidents by the schools. This allows them to punish those that don't report as well as take action against those that do. I would think the punishment for those that lack to report incidents will be much more than those that report a minor incident, as long as they aren't repeat offenders.

The original intent was NEVER to NOT shake hands.

Respectfully disagree.

Agree. I think the belief was that the officials should "police" the handshake. Tackett is making it clear that this is not the case. There are two separate issue's being addressed. 1 - Officials shouldn't stick around because it may lead to confrontation. 2 - Coaches/Admins are in charge of their players conduct when the game concludes, not the officials.

Because some officials would stick around. Football and basketball officials high tail it out of there. Other sports they do not. And in baseball, a player or coach can get thrown out of a game even after it's over. That's another reason they need to get out immediately.

As for the bolded, not immediately in all sports. I still haven't seen where they are discouraging handshakes. "...the schools continue to have the option to have postgame handshakes as always, provided they are properly supervised..." That's it. The entire thing is saying, have a postgame handshake and supervise it yourself because it's not on the officials to supervise it.