Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
Agreed. I typically just say, "she can't play with them in," but there's no one that has said I can't say, "she needs to take them out." If I get an argument after saying "she has to take them out," that's when I'll offer the alternative by saying, "She can't play with them in."
|
Granted, for the most part it's simply semantics. But there is a slight difference between saying "they can't participate" (the rule) vs. "they have to take it out" (not the rule).
Similar situation - player has blood on their jersey, and you can see it's too much to simply clean off. You tell the coach, "Your player needs to change their jersey before they can play again." So, as the player is walking towards the bench, they take off their jersey to replace it with an extra one the manager had available, so they can be ready to go at the next available opportunity. Do you now give the player a T for following your orders?
What if the player with piercing develops some sort of medical condition as a result of you telling them they "had to take it out"? (Yes, I know, this would be a very unlikely scenario.) But if you told them they simply couldn't participate, all of the responsibility for taking it out will rest with the player.
The point is, even though unlikely, something negative could happen as a result of your direct order. Sticking with the direct application of the rule will keep you out of those situations.