Back to the OP...where the offending bauble was covered by tape. As a coach I've spoken to many umps about this. With few exceptions they expressed that it was none of their business what was underneath the tape or a bandaid...whether it was recent surgery, jewelry, or a small thermonuclear device....it didn't matter what the coach said it was...they didn't have x-ray vision and they weren't about to ask the player to take off the tape. I concur.

That would be Chicken Little,er...Homeland Security's department.:rolleyes:

My favorite warning label was on the package of a Superman costume in Toys 'R' Us:

"Warning: The wearing of this costume does not enable the wearer to fly."

No, I'm not making it up.

Warning labels are for people smart enough to read labels but dumb enough to stick a pencil in their eye. In other words, nobody.

Not quite nobody... defendant's bar! ;)

I also like the warning on a lawnmower that it is not to be used to trim hedges...

Or the warning on a snowblower that it is not to be used on a roof...

Believe it or not, all (or nearly all) of these goofy labels are the result of someone getting hurt doing exactly what the label warns against!

Which is probably why we have so many goofy rules in our rule books, too!

Originally posted by NCASAUmp:
A little more on topic... What are these girls doing playing ball with jewelry on anyway? There's a time and place for "looking pretty," and the ball field ain't it.

I officiate volleyball, and often work with officials that work other sports. A few years ago one of them related an incident that I still find amusing. He was working a softball game between a local public school and an exclusive private school. He noticed during warmups that one of the players from the private school was wearing earrings and informed her that she would not be able to participate in the game unless she removed the earrings. She kind of gave him a blank stare and he said "you could just give them to someone to hold for you until the game is over".

She replied "Would you have someone hold a pair of $15,000 earrings for you?!"

She sat the bench.

Your honor, I would like to call to the stand my first witness.


The defense rests.

Nice try, but it still sounds like being overly cautious to me.

Wonder what the excuse is when say, doing 18G and many of the girls are already playing D1 or going D1 and certainly are adults. Take a good CA team like the Sorcerers and well over 1/2 are that status. Yes, I've sat and watched this convo this year "you have to take off that necklace" .. "Sorry blue I forgot, I'm allowed to wear it playing college in Oklahoma." (maybe it was tennessee.. in either case was a top D1 college).

It was almost embarrassing.

But, you've changed the subject - above, he was tallking about kids (minors). Besides, merely enforcing the rule in a way you find embarassing does not mean is was done out of a need to demonstrate power (which was you claim).

You'll note I disagree with the rule. I only want to know how you know these umpires who enforce the rule are "are just power flexing" and that their motivation "has nothing to do with safety."

Softball is not safe.

And it has nothing to do with a kid wearing her grandma's necklace.

Sorry, doesn't work. The cited comment was a personal opinion/observation, not a rule or law involving the umpire. When a roster is signed, the guardian or person responsible agree to play the game by ASA rules. Therefore, the guardian is accepting responsibility for the minor.

If you want to argue who has the right to make a decision, there is no ASA rule requiring the umpire to be responsible for the player and, unless decreed by law, is not acting in loco parentis. Therefore, the umpire has no more authority to make a decision on the wearing of jewelry than the minor. The only decision making authority the umpire has is whether said jewelry is dangerous. And since none of us have passed the National Safety Council's Dangerous Jewelry in Softball Seminar, the issue is totaly subjective which means it carries little to no weight legally.

What the heck are you talkin bout willis?

Your comment makes no sense whatsoever to my argument. Maybe for my argument, but I'm not sure why you are addressing it to me.

True enough, but not to http://www.gnttype.org/forums/images...deadhorse5.gif, since you apparently don't want to answer this...

Actions do not necessarily imply motive. How do you know that umpires who enforce the jewelry rule to a level you find embarassing are doing it from a motivation of power?

Just because you disagree with what someone does, does not mean they are not doing what they believe to be best.

Good, I see you got the point. :D