Interesting scenario question

[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.