Okay, now that I've got things stirred up
Yes, I took advantage of the thread hijack referring to an U12 team to chime in.
The "jewelry" rules are very vague and this allows umpires to get creative, sometimes to the extreme, concerning what constitutes a piece of jewelry.
Sometimes I wonder if umpires "declare" something to be jewelry because they truly believe the piece in question is dangerous or whether it just makes their life easier to zap everything.
I don't believe it would be a stretch to state that the reason for such a rule has been obliterated over the years. Some of the reasoning for declaring something dangerous has reached the level of some TWPs.
The only logical reason to eliminate/restrict/forbid jewelry is for the safety of the player(s). Is there really a valid reason to forbid wearing a rubber band/bracelet? How is that going to injure a player?
Personally, I worry more about what will injure an opposing player as opposed to something that may only be harmful to the wearer.