protocol questions
 

I have a couple of questions regarding statements made by some of my plate umpire partners in recent tournaments (this year and last).

The first is about plate umpires asking both head coaches if "their teams are legally and properly equipped and will remain so for the entire game". This is clearly a requirement for NFHS officials that work high school games. I am not aware of any requirement within the USA rules or umpire manual that has us requesting this of coaches.

Some coaches who may not coach HS ball in NH just kind of look at the umpire quizzically and either just nod or reply affirmatively, not even sure about what they've just answered. My concern is that a coach who does do HS coaching in NH now already knows that the particular official is not sure of the sanction s/he is officiating.

When I asked one partner why he asked that of the coaches, he claimed that a "lawyer" told him/her that asking the coaches to assume the responsibility for "proper equipment" would ease any liability on him/her if there was ever a claim against him/her due to an injury related to faulty or illegal equipment. Not sure I buy that, but whatever.

The second issue regards the jewelry rule. NFHS allows no jewelry at all. USA leaves it up to the umpire's discretion. One partner recently declared that s/he deems "all jewelry to be dangerous and therefore no jewelry is allowed". One base partner, actually piped up during the plate conference that no jewelry would be allowed in the game when s/he saw a player wearing stud earrings. I do allow certain pieces of jewelry to be worn in USA games such as stud earrings or even nose studs. I won't allow any dangling-type pieces such as hoop earrings or nose rings. Back to my partner at the plate conference, I said that I was the UIC for this particular game and I would determine what was dangerous.

One thing that is becoming more and more common is the wrist bands folks are wearing to track their steps, number of flights of stairs, and/or heart rates. I normally ask players to remove what I'd consider to be a traditional wrist-watch or a bracelet with attachments. I've been allowing the fitness-type devices. I don't know if USA will address this or simply leave it up to discretion of the umpire(s), as it is now.

Just thought I'd pose the questions to get some inputs and/or discussion.

re: the NFHS "properly equiped" question. I agree with you.

re: the partner's jewelry statement, it is his judgment, and I would not throw him under the bus at the plate meeting. He can act on his judgment, and you on yours, but no public scolding, no overruling.

re: fitbits et al... in NFHS, illegal; in ASA, umpire judgment and I expect that to remain the case.

U-trip requires both.

While any UIC or local area sanction may suggest (or require) that you ask if players are legally or properly equipped, the legal reality is that you are p'ing in the wind, unless it is an actual NFHS sanctioned game. The legal concept of in loco parentis, meaning in the place of a parent, only applies in high school. So ask anyone other than a high school coach, and the result is 1) they have no legal standing to waive YOUR (and others) liability, and 2) you are proving to anyone with a clue that you have no clue.

Each sanction is free to describe jewelry and its' legality as it chooses. When the sanction allows the umpire's determination of safety or legality, each umpire in a crew may have different judgements; but we need to support our partner's call in this area, just like any other call we may question.

Even in NFHS, it cannot stop someone from taking action against you or anyone else. While you will most likely prevail in NFHS, I don't think even God knows what is going to happen once something is in the legal system :)

Five or six years ago we had a local invitational tournament sanctioned by ASA. The UIC for the tournament included a statement declaring "no jewelry of any kind would be permitted" when he sent out tournament rules.

The state UIC had him retract that statement and stressed that this would be an individual umpire's judgment, per ASA rules.

If I have a belief that only certain types of jewelry might be considered dangerous, but my base partner chooses to invoke the NFHS rule at our plate conference, who has overruled whom? (Is that the correct grammar? :confused:)

Do we treat this like someone calling "shotgun" when taking a road trip? He who says it first gets the final say?

I'm fine when said partner is the PU, and he chooses to invoke the NFHS version of the jewelry rule. I'm not going to say anything. But for him to declare that when he did, well, I think he overstepped his bounds.

I've had several partners (as PU) state no jewelry of any kind is allowed. I mentally just roll my eyes (maybe physically, also) and think it's the lazy way out. If you aren't able to decide or arbitrate, just go with the blanket coverage. :rolleyes:

When I first started umpiring (long after IM), I wondered how I could say certain jewelry was safe in ASA, when NFHS said it wasn't. Then I realized that NFHS was not defining danger, just protecting themselves from variable judgement. A rule to have a rule, like many possibly originating in some incident.

You can sue anyone for anything. Whether or not you prevail comes later. Still costs you $$.

Until you spoke up, no one had overruled anyone. In my view, he merely stated what his judgment would be wrt jewelry. That's fine; that's his judgment. He would apply that judgment whether he said anything at the plate meeting or not, I would think. IOW, his little speech just informs the coaches what he will do.

You are not obligated to follow his lead. IOW, if you see a player with jewelry on that you judge to not be a danger, you are not required to do anything about it regardless of what your partner said at the plate meeting.

Nothing is gained by a verbal debate or put-down of your partner at the plate meeting. It places your teamwork and mutual respect for each other in a negative light to the coaches.

You are partners, not boss and subordinate.

I honestly think USA Softball would do itself a favor and either allow jewelry just like NCAA, or completely disallow it just like NFHS. Or maybe compromise and allow it for 14U and higher, similar to the metal cleats rule.

Unfortunately with the way it is now, players don't have a clue what to do with their jewelry from one game to the next when they play in a weekend tournament or showcase. This sort of inconsistency amongst umpires makes us look like we can't get on the same sheet of music.

As for protection from litigation when it comes to "the golden question", don't let that fool you. I've read where umpires are part of a lawsuit in youth baseball when a player gets hurt by a batted ball just because the parents felt the bat used was too dangerous. It didn't matter that umpires inspected it before the game and found it perfectly legal, nor did it matter that the PU asked "the golden question" at the plate conference. After the injury, the parents would sue the bat manufacturer, the parent organization of the league, the league itself, the parents and coaches of the kid who hit the ball, and the umpires.

And I believe that would be a bad decision for USA Softball, which has participants from 6U to Senior Softball. Neither rule would appropriately address all the participants from 6 to 80, and would ultimately likely increase the liability and insurance costs for USA umpires and participants.

Yes, as several have repeated throughout this thread, anyone can sue anyone. But when there are solid legal fundamentals and precedents in support, it is extremely rare that these shotgun style suits secure anything from the umpires; the insuror may throw a few thousand as a settlement to be dismissed and avoid legal fees, but, except in the rare extremes of ridiculousness or actual negligence, the umpires are dismissed. And you are covered for those legal fees (and settlements) in the USA Softball umpire insurance; and/or NASO, in fact.

The NCAA rule (actually the lack of one) is based on the premise that these student-athletes are adults. What they do or don't do to protect or endanger themselves is a matter of personal accountability. The NCAA, the schools, even the umpires are basically not ever going to be liable for those decisions, absent gross negligence.

The NFHS rule is premised on legally protecting the schools, who are legally liable for the minors in their care. Who/what is the NFHS? A federation of state associations that represent whom? The schools. Not the officials/umpires nor the students, even. The best protection for the schools is an absolute ban. No judgments by anyone.

USA umpires are granted the latitude to adjust to an adult game (which NFHS never has) or a youth game (which NCAA never has). Because the judgment is authorized and supported in the rules, it isn't a matter of liability unless the umpire makes NO judgment, or is grossly (generally meaning with intent to be) negligent.

There will always be someone that wants everything to be black or white, and never a shade of gray. Yet a game with participants from 6 to 80 just cannot have one absolute rule that is appropriate to every level. So, this is what we paid the big bucks to decide; and it may be different from game to game.

I'm with Steve and have seen what happens when you tell someone they cannot wear their wedding ring.

USA Softball already has rule sets regarding metal cleats that ban them for some levels, and allow them for others. I don't see how it would be that hard to do the same with jewelry. Something as simple as allowing it for 14U and up wouldn't be that difficult to implement, unless someone feels that our 80 year-old players shouldn't wear jewelry either.
.
.
And that's where I think our reputation gets a little damaged. Imagine two umpires working multiple games together like I did a few weeks ago. My partner and I did five games back-to-back. If I were staunch no-jewelry-period umpire, and he wasn't, we'd conceivably be back and forth with our enforcement, depending on who had the plate. I think it just makes us look inconsistent before the game even gets started, and sets a tone with the coaches.

I am joining the conversation late but I have the following observation to make.

One only has to look at the sport of basketball to see how easy it is to ban all jewelry. All basketball rules codes (NFHS, NCAA Men's and Women's, NBA, WNBA, and FIBA), world wide, prohibit the wearing of jewelry. Which means technically, the rubber bracelets (you know the cancer ones) and rubber bands that you seen worn at all levels except NFHS are illegal. So, if basketball can ban jewelry (not withstanding rubber bracelets and rubber bands) world wide, any sport can do it.

Just my two cents.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. My opinion is that no matter what the sport, jewelry should be banned.

My opinion is it is no one's business what I anyone wears (other than a standard uniform) as long as it is not a danger to another. I have no problem carrying my belief into the games