Hmmmm....
Quote:
SITUATION: In the second inning,
Team B player # 44 playing shortstop is discovered
wearing jewelry.
RULING: Team B #44 along with the
head coach will be restricted to the bench /
dugout area for the remainder of the game. If
this is the 2nd occurrence, then the head coach
is disqualified from the game and a DQ report
will be filed with the PIAA office.
COMMENT: When the head coach
verified in the pre-game conference that their
team is legally and properly equipped and in
compliance with the NFHS/PIAA rules, on
the first occurrence the head coach is restricted
to the bench and if it is the 2nd occurrence
they will be disqualified from the
game and a DQ report will be filed with the
PIAA office. (NFHS Rule 1-4-10 and PIAA
Modification).
|
I'm still kind of new to this umpiring thing, but, frankly, this strikes me as a load of hor$e$hit.
OK, I know FED doesn't want players wearing pieces of jewelry during games (unless they're "religious" or "medical"), and I have no problem enforcing the rule. Every 10th game or so that I do (I do a fair amount of "underclass" games), I'll see a kid wearing a piece of "jewelry". I politely and firmly inform him that I "need you to take that off". They do. No big deal. It's over.
If I notice a second kid in the game with "jewelry", I do the exact same thing. I might talk to the coach between innings and politely tell him that I need him to make sure that none of his kids are wearing "jewelry". It's never been an issue in a game I've worked.
This PIAA "modification" strikes me as the perfect formula for turning a molehill into a mountain. At the umpire's expense. Personally, I'd just say "No."
Also, the author of this garbage needs a remedial course in basic grammar.
JMO.
JM