Are bobbie-pins jewelry?

[DaveASA/FED]

I think one thing to remember is that the 2nd question was posted as a u12 team. They did not say what rule set, several leagues use NFHS rules so I fail to see why some are disregarding this rules information, it might be the only that fits this discussion.

I see Irishs point for ASA, although I think the better more informative answer would be in ASA it is umpires judgement if they feel it is dangerous it must be removed.

Lance Armstrong braclets were adressed at the NUS this year and it was said to have them removed. NFHS had the same stance. So I am having them removed if they want to play.

[SRW]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

Lance Armstrong braclets were adressed at the NUS this year and it was said to have them removed.

Do you have anything written to back that up?

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by SRW

Do you have anything written to back that up?

Probably not, but so often, a lot of what's said at clinics and schools is not written down.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Okay, now that I've got things stirred up

Yes, I took advantage of the thread hijack referring to an U12 team to chime in.

The "jewelry" rules are very vague and this allows umpires to get creative, sometimes to the extreme, concerning what constitutes a piece of jewelry.

Sometimes I wonder if umpires "declare" something to be jewelry because they truly believe the piece in question is dangerous or whether it just makes their life easier to zap everything.

I don't believe it would be a stretch to state that the reason for such a rule has been obliterated over the years. Some of the reasoning for declaring something dangerous has reached the level of some TWPs.

The only logical reason to eliminate/restrict/forbid jewelry is for the safety of the player(s). Is there really a valid reason to forbid wearing a rubber band/bracelet? How is that going to injure a player?

Personally, I worry more about what will injure an opposing player as opposed to something that may only be harmful to the wearer.

[Dholloway1962]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The only logical reason to eliminate/restrict/forbid jewelry is for the safety of the player(s). Is there really a valid reason to forbid wearing a rubber band/bracelet? How is that going to injure a player?

Personally, I worry more about what will injure an opposing player as opposed to something that may only be harmful to the wearer.

Player slides into 2nd as 2nd tags. As runner slides fielder's fingers catch into the band. The band could break a finger or wrist. Not worth the risk to me. In fact, I think a regular chain bracelet is safer than the rubber bracelets, at least the chain will break, the rubber ones won't.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dholloway1962

Player slides into 2nd as 2nd tags. As runner slides fielder's fingers catch into the band. The band could break a finger or wrist. Not worth the risk to me. In fact, I think a regular chain bracelet is safer than the rubber bracelets, at least the chain will break, the rubber ones won't.

You're kidding, right? What was I saying about TWPs?

Thank you for proving my point.

[Dholloway1962]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

You're kidding, right? What was I saying about TWPs?

Thank you for proving my point.

Didn't break her finger when it happened at a game I was watching. But close enough it had to be x-rayed. So, no I'm not kidding.

[bkbjones]

Originally Posted by Dholloway1962

Player slides into 2nd as 2nd tags. As runner slides fielder's fingers catch into the band. The band could break a finger or wrist. Not worth the risk to me. In fact, I think a regular chain bracelet is safer than the rubber bracelets, at least the chain will break, the rubber ones won't.

Could you please explain that to my three stepgrandchildren who don't have a paternal grandfather? He was basically garotted by his chain while sliding into second base. He left two young sons and a wife who was carrying their daughter.

I might let something else slide, but nothing around the neck gets by.

[Dholloway1962]

Originally Posted by bkbjones

Could you please explain that to my three stepgrandchildren who don't have a paternal grandfather? He was basically garotted by his chain while sliding into second base. He left two young sons and a wife who was carrying their daughter.

I might let something else slide, but nothing around the neck gets by.

Perhaps you misread my post...it said bracelets not necklaces. Sorry for your loss.

moving right along now

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Okay, now that I've got things stirred up

Yes, I took advantage of the thread hijack referring to an U12 team to chime in.

The "jewelry" rules are very vague and this allows umpires to get creative, sometimes to the extreme, concerning what constitutes a piece of jewelry.

Sometimes I wonder if umpires "declare" something to be jewelry because they truly believe the piece in question is dangerous or whether it just makes their life easier to zap everything.

I don't believe it would be a stretch to state that the reason for such a rule has been obliterated over the years. Some of the reasoning for declaring something dangerous has reached the level of some TWPs.

The only logical reason to eliminate/restrict/forbid jewelry is for the safety of the player(s). Is there really a valid reason to forbid wearing a rubber band/bracelet? How is that going to injure a player?

Personally, I worry more about what will injure an opposing player as opposed to something that may only be harmful to the wearer.

Its not easier to conduct continuous person inspections.. its a drag. Sometimes I have partners who are nonstop with the jewelry.. with the perfect tucked shirt.. with this with that.. then they go farther and kind of accuse me as if I need to hold their same OOO "values".

Its easier to allow the "girl tuck" for shirts, especially when batting.. and to maybe not be so observant about jewelry unless it truly is dangerous...

I'm just not into running around nonstop, calling time continuously, and dealing with this stuff ad nauseum.

You know what I'm picky about while these umps are so worried they are conducting under bandaid inspections.. keeping those girls in the dug out so they dont get creamed with a foul ball.. and other issues where I have seen them get hurt.. .not this urban legend 1/1,000,000 type injuries that get dreamed up.

And then, top it off.. these same ump go to a mens game...

Suddenly that stuff is not so dangerous.. because its like a bling festival at those games.

[NCASAUmp]

I agree, wade. We can dream up all sorts of circumstances where players can get injured by everything from their necklaces to their shoelaces. Gotta draw a line somewhere.

And yeah, those bling-fests don't last long on my field, either.

[DaveASA/FED]

Sure the rule has been stated above. FED is clear, have them take it all off, ASA it was a suggestion/interpretation from a highly ranking NUS Supervisor. Of course it is your judgement, and like all other judgement calls they are not able to be appealed, but it was his opinion that only bad things can happen when they are left on, nothing bad can happen when they are removed, why not remove the chance of something bad happening?

Everyone has gone round and round here bottom line is it your judgement in ASA what is dangerous, if you want it gone either it is taken off or they don't play. What is dangerous is up to you but it is also up to you how much you leave yourself open to a discussion if someone does get hurt and "you let them play with that on" granted we always have the I never saw it statement. I think there are more important issues to address than this both on this forum and on the field. If you think it is dangerous have it removed or the player dont play...if you let it go and they get hurt in this sue happy world know you are open to a lawsuit, might not lose in court over it but you could be pulled into court over it, and who wants to miss a chance to umpire a game over some stupid thing like that???