Quote:
Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu
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.  |
Until you spoke up, no one had overruled anyone. In my view, he merely stated what his judgment would be wrt jewelry. That's fine; that's his judgment. He would apply that judgment whether he said anything at the plate meeting or not, I would think. IOW, his little speech just informs the coaches what he will do.
You are not obligated to follow his lead. IOW, if you see a player with jewelry on that you judge to not be a danger, you are not required to do anything about it regardless of what your partner said at the plate meeting.
Nothing is gained by a verbal debate or put-down of your partner at the plate meeting. It places your teamwork and mutual respect for each other in a negative light to the coaches.
You are partners, not boss and subordinate.