Interesting scenario question

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by umpjim

So if you have to tell a player to take off jewelry you have unfairly affected the game. But I get where you are coming from. I do baseball and nit shit rules do not affect the fairness of a game in my neck of the woods.

While I understand the rationale behind the NFHS jewelry rule, I don't paticularly like the "see what we can get away with" attidute making it the umpire's responsibility seems to engender.

NFHS's rules questionnaire asks about a rule proposal to restrict the coach for any violation of "properly and legally equipped" discovered after the plate meeting (question wording heavily paraphrased...). I answered that I would favor such a rule. My reasoning is to place more of the burden on the coach, where (IMO) it properly belongs.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Dakota

While I understand the rationale behind the NFHS jewelry rule, I don't paticularly like the "see what we can get away with" attidute making it the umpire's responsibility seems to engender.

NFHS's rules questionnaire asks about a rule proposal to restrict the coach for any violation of "properly and legally equipped" discovered after the plate meeting (question wording heavily paraphrased...). I answered that I would favor such a rule. My reasoning is to place more of the burden on the coach, where (IMO) it properly belongs.

I would be a lot more supportive if they more reasonably defined jewelry and adornments. I hate needing to address some of the items like gel bands, yarn, hair control items on the wrist, and other items obviously not unsafe short of 27th-world imagination scenarios.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I would be a lot more supportive if they more reasonably defined jewelry and adornments. I hate needing to address some of the items like gel bands, yarn, hair control items on the wrist, and other items obviously not unsafe short of 27th-world imagination scenarios.

I agree with this.

But, the NFHS rule CAN be applied very simply: unless the adornment is specifically allowed, it is illegal.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I would be a lot more supportive if they more reasonably defined jewelry and adornments. I hate needing to address some of the items like gel bands, yarn, hair control items on the wrist, and other items obviously not unsafe short of 27th-world imagination scenarios.

Steve:

My definition is jewelry is very simple: If you weren't wearing when you came out of the womb, it is jewelry. !

MTD, Sr.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Steve:

My definition is jewelry is very simple: If you weren't wearing when you came out of the womb, it is jewelry. !

MTD, Sr.

So no uniforms or other garments??

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Steve:

My definition is jewelry is very simple: If you weren't wearing when you came out of the womb, it is jewelry. !

MTD, Sr.

Including eyeglasses, braces on teeth (especially the brightly-colored designer versions), or an insulin pump either attached to a belt or in a back pocket?