Perhaps, and it's his own fault if he does hurt himself.

Which is exactly why I don't worry about jewelry that is not a danger to anyone else.

Jewelry..............
 

Speaking ASA, the same rule for all.

Injuries...........
 

Seth - Same here with our Men's league. Most of them wear jewelry of one kind or another. Now, in ASA SP "jewelry don't play." We've discussed this at-length during our association meetings. We've come to the conclusion that players KNOW jewelry is prohibited and IF THEY CHOOSE to wear jewelry, then they accept the risk of injury. It is unfortunate, but you have to be "litigation conscious" these days when you take the field.
I had one 3 years ago. We're playing and the storm clouds are moving in. I saw a bolt of lightning and got the players off the field. We're in a delay and one player comes up to me and says: "Are you an umpire or a f**king weatherman?" I looked him straight in the eyes and said: "I am an umpire who is responsible for YOUR safety and as long as lightning is in the area, WE ARE NOT PLAYING. I probably should have ejected him for that comment, but I didn't. We ended up getting rained out.

While I agree a participant is responsible for themselves, ASA does NOT forbid jewelry in any game or level.

Jewelry..........
 

It is left up to the umpire's judgment whether it is considered "dangerous" or not. For sure, I am NOT going to let a 13-year old wear "hoop" style/pierced earrings on to the field. If someone makes a swipe tag on her and catches that earring, it will be ripped out and she will bleed.
Again, preventive umpiring.

If it cannot harm another participant, I'm not worrying about it. Mama Gump was right, "stupid is as stupid does."

But doesn't the rule just say "dangerous" and not "dangerous to others"?

This year's NFHS change will add to the confusion in other rules. :rolleyes:

And that's how I adjust based on the level of play. I will make a youth player remove jewelry I judge dangerous to either her or others; she cannot legally make a conscious decision to assume liability for her stupidity to endanger herself, so I can be held liable.

With adults, I only make them remove that which is dangerous to others. They are legally responsible for their stupidity in that regard, and I would have minimal, if any liablility when they make an adult (albeit stupid) decision which affects only themselves.

With the idiots selected for jury duty and the socialist judges on the bench, I will not disagree that you could be found liable though I would disagree with that issue.

The rule book (ASA) specifically states that I must believe the jewelry to be dangerous. I do not automatically consider jewelry dangerous because the person wearing it is under 18 yo. I also don't consider anything A PARENT allows a child to wear as dangerous since the parent did not.

Parents...............
 

Irish - Some "parents" these days SHOULDN'T BE PARENTS. What are you saying - if a "parent" allows their child to play a softball game with large, hoop earrings on, you are going to allow it?

Good judgment call, blue...........
 

I agree completely Steve and could not have said it any better.

I don't disagree, but its not up to me to determine who can or cannot have children.

But I'm not being paid to babysit. I would have to see them.

Does that mean you would object if an umpire is more strict about self-danger, more like HS thinking, in an ASA game under your jurisdiction?