[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Yeah, I really don't think I can use this as a valid argument to justify why sunglasses aren't considered jewelry when not worn over the eyes.

A more valid argument, in my mind, is that all jewelry except religious and medical alert medals is prohibited, regardless how it's worn. So if sunglasses are allowed over the eyes, then by definition they are not considered jewelry; otherwise, they would not be allowed, period.

This whole sunglasses-on-the-cap kick is something old crusty umpires who feel anything outside of the "true" uniform should not be tolerated. They are the ones who get bent out of shape over players wearing their caps off-centered or with their bills completely flattened, who wear their pant legs over the heel of the shoe, who put too much eye black on their faces, etc., etc. I remember a couple of those umpires in my son's old Little League organization who would make a fuss over kids who wore two different colored socks, or who wore fitted caps when other players had adjustable ones. Really?

I guess that's what happens when I point out something logical.