federation - piaa jewelry policy

[newump]

i'm trying to help out with a new piaa chapter. the 2008 piaa bulletin has the following case play. this seems to indicate that there is not a warning given to the first offender, instead he is restricted to the bench. the coaches apparently don't like the interp and want a warning given first.


"Coach/Player Uniform Violation—Clarification:"

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).

[UmpJM]

Hmmmm....

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

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

OK, I know FED doesn't want players wearing pieces of jewelry during games (unless they're "religious" or "medical")

The only thing FED allows are medical and they must be taped down.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

The only thing FED allows are medical and they must be taped down.

Steven,

Thank you for your characteristically insightful comment. Perhaps you could explain to me the following statement from 1-5-12 (FED, 2008), because apparently, "I don't get it":

ART. 12...Jewelry shall not be worn (See 3-3-1d) except for religious or medical medals. ...

BTW, quick, off the top of your head, which may be visible when "taped", and which may not (and to WHOM)?

JM

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Steven,

Thank you for your characteristically insightful comment. Perhaps you could explain to me the following statement from 1-5-12 (FED, 2008), because apparently, "I don't get it":



BTW, quick, off the top of your head, which may be visible when "taped", and which may not (and to WHOM)?

JM

Define religious medals and just maybe my views will be swayed, irregardless of the wording of the rules. Everything has come off in my FED games. I'm yet to see a medic alert bracelet or dog tags that need to be taped. Different associations and states tend to equal different rule interpretations.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Define religious medals and just maybe my views will be swayed,

Anything the participant claims to be religious.

It must be taped under the uniform so as not to be visible.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Bren

Glock 19?

Still hanging around, Donovan?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

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.

Interesting. NFHS basketball has a similar rule barring jewelry except for religious or medical reasons, but.....we are specifically told by the FED that we cannot tell anyone to take anything off. We have been directed to tell the player(s) that they can't play wearing illegal jewelry and must stay on the bench until the jewelry is removed. Supposedly it's some kinda legal/PC/human rights issue. This applies to pre-game warm-ups too.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Interesting. NFHS basketball has a similar rule barring jewelry except for religious or medical reasons, but.....we are specifically told by the FED that we cannot tell anyone to take anything off. We have been directed to tell the player(s) that they can't play wearing illegal jewelry and must stay on the bench until the jewelry is removed. Supposedly it's some kinda legal/PC/human rights issue. This applies to pre-game warm-ups too.

FED baseball does seem to be slightly different. Cf. 1.5.12B: "...The umpire will instruct B1 that he must remove the ring or he will not be permitted to play."

In basketball we leave the choice implicit: "You may not be on the floor wearing that."

I speculate that the difference stems from the fact that the rules for basketball are for both boys and girls. You would not want to hear a (male) referee hollering "Hey, take that off!" to a girl.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I speculate that the difference stems from the fact that the rules for basketball are for both boys and girls.

I read someplace iirc that the FED got a legal opinion on it, and that you couldn't legally tell anybody to remove anything, but you could tell them that they couldn't play while wearing something. Works out the same anyway, after the nits are picked.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Bren

If you have a better theory, I'd be interested in hearing it.

[C'monBlue]

I apologize in advance for an off-the-wall question, but how exactly does one define "jewelry" for the purpose of this rule? I don't find wristbands offensive, but I don't like to see those little rope bracelets. My own rule of thumb (which admittedly, I made up in the absence of supporting documentation) has been to make anyone remove anything that could conceivably cause injury in the course of a play. (For example, a fielder's hand gets caught under the necklace of a sliding runner.)

I bring up this topic mostly because I would have to have a reasonable definition to offer the local rats who create diversions and pick nits over stupid things like this. Generally, I tell them that if their wives wouldn't accept it as a Valentine's Day gift, it ain't jewelry. I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

[charliej47]

It was once explained to me as:
1:If it is not part of the official uniform, you can not wear it.
2:if is is needed for medical reason and can be verified as such and does not in the opinion of the official,distract from the game, may be worn.
3: if it is growing out of your body and does not violate number 2, then you are ok.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by mbyron

If you have a better theory, I'd be interested in hearing it.

You won't. The Troll is acting out again.

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by newump

i'm trying to help out with a new piaa chapter. the 2008 piaa bulletin has the following case play. this seems to indicate that there is not a warning given to the first offender, instead he is restricted to the bench. the coaches apparently don't like the interp and want a warning given first.

New chapter or not, your protocol is still the same isn't it? If your chapter interpreter's answer doesn't satisfy you, go to the district. If still not satisfied, talk to Marty. Marty was pretty clear in stating that the pre-game meeting with coaches & captains is the warning. It doesn't matter who likes the position or not, that's PIAA's position.