[DownTownTonyBrown]

I've over-reacted.

Jeff you are arguing different things. Liability and insurance coverage are not the same thing. Having insurance coverage does not remove liability. Insurance coverage just means that (perhaps, if they want to and can't find a legal escape) the insurance company will pay for losses if you are found liable for malfeasance. It does not remove your responsibility for proper conduct of the contest.

The uniform, in a great way, says you are certified and capable to the casual observer. And the lack of a uniform, disregard for timeliness, and disregard for the safety of the contest (the reason for not allowing jewelry) strongly says the opposite; that person is not qualified, not certified, and not capable. Of course these are just appearances - he maybe certified and a dork.

I contend, strongly, that if an official allows someone with this blatant disregard, to participate in the game, that official is liable for the actions of his "disregarding" partner. If it is obvious to the public, it is going to be obvious to a lawyer too.

As an official, you're wearing a necklace, keep it in your shirt. Wedding band, no biggie. I may chastise you for something as stupid and unimportant as a necklace and embarrass that person into removing it. But the blatant disregard of this college student, to work an organized JH game, I would not tolerate. I'm sure you've got 9th graders in Chicago that stuff the ball and play a highly physical game just like here. I'm thinking safety and capability to work the game are important.

I'm done.