Five or six years ago we had a local invitational tournament sanctioned by ASA. The UIC for the tournament included a statement declaring "no jewelry of any kind would be permitted" when he sent out tournament rules.
The state UIC had him retract that statement and stressed that this would be an individual umpire's judgment, per ASA rules.
If I have a belief that only certain types of jewelry might be considered dangerous, but my base partner chooses to invoke the NFHS rule at our plate conference, who has overruled whom? (Is that the correct grammar?
)
Do we treat this like someone calling "shotgun" when taking a road trip? He who says it first gets the final say?
I'm fine when said partner is the PU, and he chooses to invoke the NFHS version of the jewelry rule. I'm not going to say anything. But for him to declare that when he did, well, I think he overstepped his bounds.
I've had several partners (as PU) state no jewelry of any kind is allowed. I mentally just roll my eyes (maybe physically, also) and think it's the lazy way out. If you aren't able to decide or arbitrate, just go with the blanket coverage.
