Va Tech Running back wearing Gold Watch Vs OSU

Well I'll be damned. That's it:

espnapi_dm_150907_Coleman_rocks_a_gold_watch_on_field_wmain.jpg


Still does say that the description though that the dial window is a mineral crystal rather than an acrylic. Would think that would be too hard of a substance to be allowed on jewelry.
 
ronricks said:
people seriously think that cheap Casio/Timex he had on looks like a Rolex? :lol::lol::lol::lol:
Click to expand...

I never said it looked like a Rolex, and was certainly sure it was fake, but it did look mighty big and "blingy" on the tube.
 
GoGATech said:
He said he wore it because it's "his time." I always thought it was against the rules to wear any kind of metal jewelry.
Click to expand...

12 carries for 43 yards. It's his time all right.

Interesting tidbit, VT is often credited with being one of the toughest stadiums/environments to play in. But dating back to 2013, they are now 1-7 in their last 8 home games against FBS teams. Their lone win was a late comeback against UVA to end last season.
 
gtrower said:
Interesting tidbit, VT is often credited with being one of the toughest stadiums/environments to play in. But dating back to 2013, they are now 1-7 in their last 8 home games against FBS teams. Their lone win was a late comeback against UVA to end last season.
Click to expand...

the schadenfreude is strong with that statistic.
 
GoGATech said:
Just found that too after I posted that I thought it was against the rules. How is that not against the rules though? Seriously, not only on just any player, but a running back at that. That thing will cut the crap out of some arms and hands trying to tackle him.
Click to expand...

I officiate. In HS clearly against the rules. Player safety issue. Someone with an unnecessary fashion accessory--an accessory that is metal and could tear flesh---not acceptable.

By way of contrast, a VT player's ankle monitor would be allowed.
 
TechSBP said:
I officiate. In HS clearly against the rules. Player safety issue. Someone with an unnecessary fashion accessory--an accessory that is metal and could tear flesh---not acceptable.
Click to expand...

Needs to be against the rules for this reason.

I think they are already prohibited and the head of officiating is wrong. (I am assuming the written rules are the authority and not the head of officiating.)

Edit:
Illegal Equipment
ARTICLE 7. Illegal equipment includes the following:
a. Equipment worn by a player that could endanger other players.

Appendix E:
A. Details Regarding Illegal Equipment:
6. There may be no projection of metal or other hard surface from a player's person or clothing.

The only way I see that it would be permitted by the rules is if it were soft and non-metal (i.e., no hard surface).
 
gtzulu said:
Needs to be against the rules for this reason.

I think they are already prohibited and the head of officiating is wrong. (I am assuming the written rules are the authority and not the head of officiating.)

Edit:
Illegal Equipment
ARTICLE 7. Illegal equipment includes the following:
a. Equipment worn by a player that could endanger other players.

Appendix E:
A. Details Regarding Illegal Equipment:
6. There may be no projection of metal or other hard surface from a player's person or clothing.

The only way I see that it would be permitted by the rules is if it were soft and non-metal (i.e., no hard surface).
Click to expand...

We've established that it is indeed not a metal watch, but the mineral glass face I think would be hard enough to make it a bannable object.
 
GoGATech said:
We've established that it is indeed not a metal watch, but the mineral glass face I think would be hard enough to make it a bannable object.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the greater risk than a hard surface is a defender getting a finger snagged in a loose-fitting watch. That would not end well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top