ASA/jewelry/youth
 

I'm working a local rec tourney this week that is using ASA rules with a few modifications (2 EP's, etc). No mention of jewelry whatsoever in the rule suppliment. Before my game the coach comes up to me and tells me that one of his players has a nose stud covered with tape and he wants to know whether she can play. I know that ASA 3-6-F says exposed jewelry "judged by the umpire to be dangerous" can't be worn. I judge her small 1/4" covered area to be acceptable and we play.

I work all kinds of youth ball (Fed, USSSA, NSA ) with each organization specifically stating no jewelry and I follow those rulesets to the letter. I work womens ASA fastpitch where essentially anything goes. But this was the first youth ASA that I've done where their wasn't any addendum or extra rules stating no jewelry. And the tournament director said it was my call.

After the games, a few umps were talking and they all said they would't allow the girl to play on their field. For consistencys sake I may reverse myself next game. My question is does anyone allow youth jewelry in an ASA youth game? The ASA rulebook seems to leave it very open to interpretation. If they specifically wanted no youth jewelry, wouldn't it be phrased that way?

I work a rec league where there is no mention of jewelry so I just follow the ASA standard. But I also went to the league coordinator and asked him what he wanted me to do, and he told me as long as its safe its fine. I'm not big on the jewelry policing. Most umpires are. When the rule is in place, I do enforce what I see, I just may not see it.

If I have a partner who has warned pregame and is a little hard core about it, I will give out friendly warnings, just to save them from a run in with him.

Yes, it would (see NFHS). ASA specifically says EXPOSED jewlery and leaves it to umpire judgment as to whether the jewlery is "dangerous." Taped over is not exposed (technically). I wish ASA would delete the entire rule and leave the issue with parents and coaches where it belongs. If they insist on having a jewlery rule, re-word it so it must be judged dangerous to OTHER players and leave out the one wearing it. Again, that is for parents and coaches (and players when old enough).

You're right, ASA does leave it open to interpretation, and I wish more umpires would tighten up a bit on what they judge to be dangerous. Thick gold necklaces that hang down to the collarbone, to me, can be dangerous - if a hand gets in there, it can slice the player's neck if it doesn't choke them first. With earrings, I'm a little lenient. If it's a hoop or has a big stud, it's out. If it's tiny, well... I'll probably let it go. And yes, I hate to say it, but female players (and even some males, too) typically have to take off that big rock their husbands (or wives) gave them. Most of the hardcore female players already take theirs off, but some of the (w)rec(k) players still leave them on.

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.

Hell..we even make the kids take off those plastic servicemen bracelets - we are taking NO chances...

Of course, ASA offers a supplementary course leading to a Certificate of Jewelery Safety that you have all taken, right?

I am in a profession where protecting ourselves from liability is a huge part of the job, and I would hate to see some lawsuit-happy parent latch on to the fact that "the umpire said it was safe, but my baby took a ball to the nose and her nose stud made the injury worse."

While I will go by whichever rules are being used, my struggle is with deciding what is dangerous. With NFHS being my most frequent rules, and them considering everything dangerous, can I really say the same item is not dangerous somewhere else? Even the term "exposed" is a ambiguous, intended for fully concealed necklaces, belly rings, etc.; but not everyone considers taped-over to be non-exposed.

Youre concerned with liability and you take a course that certifies you?

Why would anyone ever say that something is safe?

Jeez... even a bag of Cheetos has a warning on it these days. Even a boat anchor probably comes with a "not to be used as a flotation device" warning.

:rolleyes:

I was once BU on a field with a girl whos gma had just died and had given her a necklace before she died (we were told this) that certainly was not unsafe.. perhaps it might get broken and lost.. but nothing that could INJURE anyone (spare me the urban legends).

Yep, you guessed it.. this umpire made her take this off. It was absurd. Jewelry patrolmen .. especially when there is no explicit rule, are just power flexing. Has nothing to do with safety.

And you know their motives how, exactly?

It seems to me it is more likely they are being excessively cautious than "power flexing." Sheesh.

When umpiring an ASA youth game, the players remove the jewelry or they don't play. Period! They are minors and technically cannot make a decision on what is safe and what is not. Adults I don't care, wear the crown jewels..

I agree, but this should not be up to the umpire to deal with. The responsible adults here are the parents (first), and coaches (second). Passing the buck to the umpire is cowardly and shirking of parental responsibility. The ONLY thing in this area that the umpire should be concerned with (IMO) is a player wearing something that is judged to be dangerous to ANOTHER player.

High Schools have a different legal situation entirely, so a complete ban there makes sense.

Exactly.

Risking wrath, in an ASA JO tourney on the field I'm working, nose studs are her business. Earrings are ok as long as they're not hoops. Livestrong bracelets are fine. As long as it's not harmful to the others on the field, I could care less. I assume that these young women have had their rights signed away with their own liability waiver that says something like "you're playing a sport and you might die."

Besides, getting hit with a pitch into the elbow happens more often (and hurts a heckufalot more) than that freak third world play where the helmet pops off and the swipe tag catches her earring and it pulls it off but not before her finger rolled under the Livestrong bracelet and broke it off and then her medical alert necklace choked her and the nose stud popped out and all the other crap that you guys make up to justify being a jewelry cop. :rolleyes:

Thanks for the responses. I'm not sure why last night I was so inclined as to say I didn't consider the nose stud dangerous. Since the vast majority of my games deal with organizations specifically not allowing jewelry, I usually just let that same stand flow into the few ASA youth games I do. But since the coach was honest and upfront in his asking, I thought that merited my decision. I know it beats the heck out of Mondays coaches who, when asked if there was jewelry under a variety of bandaids and tape, said "I don't really know".

Today I see the same two teams again in a continuation of the same game (rain yesterday). I'm still allowing it today. But after the game I believe I'll tell both coaches that to be consistent I'm joining my fellow umpires in the banning of all jewelry. Which brings up the issue of what to do if the tape slips and reveals an earring? Would the proper ASA penalty be to remove the now exposed jewelry or not be allowed to play in the game?

Either way, the whole jewelry thing is a quagmire.

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

I searched their site and couldn't find a sign-up sheet for this seminar.

I guess we are just stuck with our best judgment.:rolleyes:

I've resisted responding to this post for a long while, but can't resist any more.

I have three grandchildren who have no paternal grandfather. Their paternal grandfather died about three months before their father was born.

He died at second base.

In ASA JO ball, don't come to my game wearing a necklace. If you have a hair thingy on your wrist, put it in your hair or your pocket. No loopy earrings.

But damned sure no necklaces. And no, you can't tape it down. One death is enough.

(And donations are still being accepted all these years later for the Dana Wall Memorial Fund, First United Bank, Dimmitt, TX. It has put dozens of kids through college and will help three kids close to my heart someday, too.)

And before I forget, no necklaces on my field.

OK. Back to clock winding. Poofers!

I agree with Dakota.

Delete the entire rule and leave the issue with parents and coaches where it belongs. The level of jewelry we see 99% of the time I would put in the 'un-dangerous' category.

In this day and age, I think it's time to re-word the rule, allow it unless it's something that could hurt the players not wearing the piece concerned or that would be an obvious distraction to the opposing players.

Have each club sign a form stating they understand the risks ... etc. etc..

Some of you will shriek, but we had an ump at a tourny a couple weeks ago that wore an ear-ring ... (male ump, and an older fellow ... gray hair old).

Who you callin' old, punk? http://forums.s2kca.com/images/smilies/oldgit.gif