NFHS Jewelry Rant

[CajunNewBlue]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Again, I'm looking for the vomiting smiley.

Until they can demonstrate that their arm hair needs to be tied back, I wouldn't allow the rubber bands, either. If it's purely for ornamentation (however stupid the ornamentation may be), it's jewelry. In this case, the ribbons actually serve a purpose of holding their hair back. Decorative, yes, but sometimes, so are the uniforms themselves.

I agree... i just don't agree with the statement "If a player wasn't born with it attached to her body...it's jewelry."
I looked up what a barrette is.... but wtf about other types of hair "containment" type devices... those plastic half loop hair thingies? I "allowed" them in a FED game last night (i couldnt see them, d@mn field faces right into the setting sun)

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by CajunNewBlue

I agree... i just don't agree with the statement "If a player wasn't born with it attached to her body...it's jewelry."
I looked up what a barrette is.... but wtf about other types of hair "containment" type devices... those plastic half loop hair thingies? I "allowed" them in a FED game last night (i couldnt see them, d@mn field faces right into the setting sun)

Well, I can't speak for what NFHS would say about this or that. There will be plenty of cases where you'll find grey areas. For me, if I'm going to make the determination between whether or not to allow certain articles of "clothing," it would boil down to a few simple things.

Does it serve an actual purpose related to the game? (ie., does it keep her hair out of her face?)

Is it purely for ornamentation?

Does it have anything that, if broken or removed, could be dangerous to herself or others (such as beads on the ribbon she's using to hold her hair back)?

Does it have anything that, even if kept in place, could be dangerous to herself or others (such as sharp edges or points)?

Is it something that, if removed, would have an adverse impact on that player's performance?

That last one is reaching, but something worth considering. If the answer is no, then your response is simple: take it off.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Does it have anything that, if broken or removed, could be dangerous to herself or others (such as beads on the ribbon she's using to hold her hair back)?

Does it have anything that, even if kept in place, could be dangerous to herself or others (such as sharp edges or points)?

Is it something that, if removed, would have an adverse impact on that player's performance?

That last one is reaching, but something worth considering. If the answer is no, then your response is simple: take it off.

With the exception of the "others", why would you care?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

With the exception of the "others", why would you care?

I understand that position for adults, but for minor children, I apply a standard that also includes injury to the player.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I understand that position for adults, but for minor children, I apply a standard that also includes injury to the player.

Don't buy it. If a parent wants their daughter wear a piece of jewelry that is not dangerous to anyone else, that is their decision. If the coach wants to allow his/her player wear the same, so be it.

[Dakota]

I agree in principle; just not in practice.

[outathm]

I did have a catcher earlier this season who could have used the restraint on her arm hair, but I still wouldn't allow it in a NFHS game.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

With the exception of the "others", why would you care?

Because an injury is an injury, and it will take longer to get home if we have to wait?

I believe we were talking about kids' games. Therefore, yes, I will include that in my judgment.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

I believe we were talking about kids' games. Therefore, yes, I will include that in my judgment.

Yet another often-discussed issue that means nothing to me or the way I approach the game. Contrary to the beliefs of many coaches and parents, I don't believe an umpire should be there "for the kids". Again, the kids are the responsibility of the coaches and parents. THEY are the ones who need to be there "for the kids".

As an umpire, I'm there for the game. I don't care if it is 10U or 50+ SP, "B" FP or A/Open SP, they all get the same game and general application of the appropriate rules. And before anyone starts, I am quite aware and supportive of certain allowances at different levels or ages. This is why you DON'T put your less-than-stellar or hardnose umpires on the 10U games.

[Dakota]

Even though the NFHS rules are intolerant of jewelry (where ASA includes umpire judgment regarding safety), I like the fact that the NFHS book places the responsibility squarely with the coach, the player, and the parents.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Even though the NFHS rules are intolerant of jewelry (where ASA includes umpire judgment regarding safety), I like the fact that the NFHS book places the responsibility squarely with the coach, the player, and the parents.

Maybe, but when the suit is filed, you will be included, right or not.

[CajunNewBlue]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Even though the NFHS rules are intolerant of jewelry (where ASA includes umpire judgment regarding safety), I like the fact that the NFHS book places the responsibility squarely with the coach, the player, and the parents.

I see the exact opposite.... they place it firmly in our laps to NOT allow any of the ambiguously described pieces of jewelry or cosmetic devices.
Although like i explained to the coach.... hard is bad... soft is good.. he actually seemed to get it. (regarding hair containment devices)