| BoomerSooner |
Mon Apr 18, 2016 03:16pm |
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
(Post 986355)
When the resolution is more dangerous than the violation, a rule needs to be changed or dumped. Again, part of the problem with admin/coaches making rules with little to know working knowledge
|
I understand what you are saying here, but it is a little difficult to write a rule book that covers all possibilities, especially where it concerns matters that aren't related to the play of the game. Additionally, the authors of rule books are also faced with the challenge of considering potential liability impact of the rules.
I don't have a copy of the most current baseball or softball rule books, so help me out on this: Was language regarding ear spacers added to the rules this year? I don't recall seeing it in the football or basketball books, but I could have missed that as well. In any case, if ear spacers aren't specifically defined by NFHS as "jewelry" and argument could be made that it is ump to the official/umpire to make a determination if they are in fact jewelry and thus illegal. I fall in line with MTD and feel they are jewelry, but I imagine someone with more knowledge of the subject might tell me they are technically body modification devices or something like that.
Personally I'm going to err on the side of telling the player she can't play while wearing jewelry. I believe similar cases have been discussed here before with the conclusion (as applied to the specifics of this case) that this is the only way to avoid the risk of being sued if the player suffers an injury related to the ear spacers. If you allow the player to play with them in, it could be argued that you were negligent in your duties by allowing a player to play while wearing jewelry. If you tell the player she can play if she takes them out and an injury like Irish is concerned about occurs, it could be argued that you instructed the player to take them out which resulted in a subsequent injury. |
