Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
Just like another comment Billy likes to suggest we cannot say. If you tell a player they cannot wear jewelry, I have never seen a player really think that that means nothing more than their playing eligibility for the moment. I have never had a player think that because we address a jewelry issue that means at all times they cannot wear that item. But if guys on here have, that would be a first for me.
|
And for me, too. Please don't twist my words. I've already stated that this (jewelry) is a local issue. It has been a custom, on our local board, advice given to us by two different interpreters, over more than thirty years, that as a liability issue, we don't tell players to remove jewelry, but rather, we inform them that they can't play while wearing jewelry. Now they have an option. What they do after that is no concern of ours, but we won't let them play while they are wearing jewelry. Pretty much the same end, just different means. Hair splitting? Certainly, but it's just local, not for general use.
It's pretty far fetched. We tell a player to remove their new earrings that the doctor told them not to remove for a few weeks. They somehow get an infection. The parent blames us, because we didn't give them any options, like the option of keeping the earrings in, and not playing in that night's game. Far fetched? Yes. Could this create some type of liability? Probably not, but anybody can sue anybody, for practically any reason. Would the parent win? Probably not, but the official would still need an attorney, and have to take time away from their day job to attend meetings, depositions, court proceedings, etc. Will this ever happen real life? No, but why chance it when a simple, "You can't play with earrings", will take care of the business?
And I believe that I have heard this suggested on the Forum, by Forum members outside my local area, so it's probably not just in my little corner of Connecticut.