federation - piaa jewelry policy
 

per piaa (pa fed rules) the 1st player wearing jewelry is restricted to the bench along with the head coach. if a second player is found wearing jewelry the head coach is then ejected. is the 2nd player or subsequent player ejected or just restricted to the bench?? thanks

Section 3 Bench and Field Conduct
Art. 1 . . . A coach, player, substitute, attendant or other bench personnel shall not:
d. wear jewelry (players participating in the game) or wear bandannas;
Penalty: At the end of playing action, the umpire shall issue a warning to the coach of the team involved and the next offender on that team shall be ejected.

Edited to add: This is the Fed rule. The PIAA rule might be more stringent.

piaa is more stingent. they require a sportsmanship message to be read a ground rules. the coaches are required to verify that their players are legally equipped. this is considered their warning regarding jewelry.

newump,

check the baseball bulletins on the piaa website. they always have case plays for this modification in the bulletins (normally the preseason one).

When you asked him, what did your chapter interpreter say?

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).

Hmmmm....

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

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":

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

JM

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.

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 <b>cannot</b> tell anyone to take anything off. We have been directed to tell the player(s) that they can't <b>play</b> 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.

Thanks Steve,

I just wanted to make sure I wasn't crazy. I know what Marty and PIAA mean, the interp in the bulletin is pretty clear. I sent that to these coaches and they still want to dispute the ruling.

Just to be clear. The first player seen wearing jewelry receives no warning. He is restricted to the bench and then the penalties escalate as the interp indicates.

Thanks,
G

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. ;)

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

Yes, however I don't think we eject the players though, just keep restricting them.

I do a similar thing as UmpJM and nobody has a problem with it. Keeps you out of trouble. We should write to Marty or Dr. Lombardi and tell them this rule is just causing problems and they should take out the modification.

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

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.

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.

:)

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

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.

Anything the participant claims to be religious.

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

Still hanging around, Donovan?