I would be interested in Fed replies on these:

Situation 1: Player has tape over the top cusp of the ear, with a lump underneath. You tell coach that she cannot wear earring even with tape over it. Coach says with a smirk, "She cut her ear; that's a bandage."

Situation 2: Player has tape over her wrist. You ask, "So what have you got taped there?" She lets you know it is a WWJD bracelet.

Situation 3: Player apparently has dangle-type earrings tape up really well. You ask, "So what have you got taped there?" She lets you know it is cross earrings.

#1 I smile back with an even bigger dopey look and say "thanks a lot coach!". My association says we are not to look under any bandage. If the jewelry peeks out though, we have a warning or a player and coach restricted to the bench.

#3 She takes them out and we have a warning. Fed allows for religous medals but not earrings.

#2 What's WWJD stand for?

It's religious - "What would Jesus do?"

In that case...I'm not sure. I was thinking that a bracelet was'nt really a medal, but a quick look in my handy Webster's doesn't say anything about a medal needing to be worn around the neck. And yet 3-2-12 says a religous medal must be taped and worn "under the uniform". I guess unless the player was wearing a long sleeve shirt you have a reason for asking her to take it off.

#1 - "bandaid?" I would remind the coach that he certified (or will certify) in the pre-game conference that his players are legally equiped, and if it later discovered to be jewelry that both he and his player will be removed from the game. I would make sure the player heard the same thing.

If it is later determined that either the coach and/or player lied to cover up an illegal act then ejection for USD is warranted.

Lest you think that we cannot look under tape, I point to at least three casebook situations (3.2.12) which rules on illegal items discovered under tape. The only way I know to discover is for the player to admit it, or to temporarily remove the tape.

#2 - "WWJD." Illegal. Must be removed and relocated under the uniform.

#3 - "Cross earings." Illegal, have them removed.

WMB

#1 - "band aid?" I would remind the coach that he certified (or will certify) in the pre-game conference that his players are legally equiped, and if it later discovered to be jewelry that both he and his player will be removed from the game. I would make sure the player heard the same thing.

If it is later determined that either the coach and/or player lied to cover up an illegal act then ejection for USD is warranted.

Lest you think that we cannot look under tape, I point to at least three casebook situations (3.2.12) which rules on illegal items discovered under tape. The only way I know to discover is for the player to admit it, or to temporarily remove the tape.

#2 - "WWJD." Illegal. Must be removed and relocated under the uniform.

#3 - "Cross earrings." Illegal, have them removed.

WMB

I dont think the jewelry rule is a "nit", its a safety issue - I agree with both of WMB's posts on how to handle. It irrates me a little actually because all those girls have had the rules since rec ball and the coaches know the rule through and through, its an intentional violation IMO. The bandaid covered earrings thing got old in 10U..

The "nit" I would NOT pick though is whether WWJD is religious and even falls under that category for the "taping under uniform" exemption, to me its simplay a fad of the day ... I would let that slide so as to not cause a scene but my opinion is its not religious at all.

Just a guess, but I think that is the "nit" in the OP topic, not jewelry per se.

Basically, it don't matter a hill o' beans what your opinion is about a religious symbol. Religious symbols and icons are what the particular religion says they are. Popularity and adoption by the marginally religious does not make a religious symbol non-religious. Is a St. Christopher statuette on a dashboard not religious because lots of people used to place it there?

The real question, though, is pretty simple: Are bracelets covered by the religious symbol exception? No, they aren't, unless they are taped to the body and covered by the uniform.

As to the taped ear, if I notice players with suspicous bandages, I remind coaches during my various pre-game inspections of the strict NFHS rule on jewelry, and tell them that taping to the body only applies to religious symbols worn under the uniform, and that it is their responsibility to ensure their players are safely and properly equiped.

Thanks everyone. Great input. Here is the incident that caused me to start the post.

Situation 1 was actually the one that happened last night, but it got me thinking about the others. In our situation, I was BU and had a 2nd yr partner in a preseason scrimmage. We saw and discussed the tape earring prior to the plate conference.

My partner took the lead at the plate conference and mentioned the jewelry rule and what we had seen. After the comment from the coach, he made what I thought was an okay statement to the effect, "Well, coach, as long as you have taken the responsibility for ensuring it is legal and safe." We of course also asked the "is your equipment legal and are you players legally equipped" questions.

At the time, I was thinking I should say, "Coach, I need to check it out", but did not know if that was proper. Thanks for the reminder of what the case book says.

I think if this occurs again, I will say at the plate conference, "Coach, after our conference here, I'll let you check it to make sure the bandage is legal. I'll be over in a few minutes to check it out for safety."

Personal opinion, nothing new.

I think the jewelry thing is way overdone.

I really don't care what anyone wants to wear as long as it is not dangerous to anyone other than that individual.

I don't have to deal with NFHS, but I believe that organization is abusing the umpire's authoritive presence on the field to protect themselves, not the player.

JMHO,

I agree with that, but hasten to add I think that is changing. The onus is now more clearly on the coach (where it should be for this kind of issue, IMO).