Dumbest question I've ever heard

[SethPDX]

Originally Posted by Stevetheump

I've been umpiring ASA since 1978 and this is the FIRST I've ever heard of this. I might bring it up at our next association meeting to see if anyone else has ever heard of this. I think doing this would increase the possibility of injury to the fielder, esp is he is attempting a "shoestring" catch and ends up trapping the ball.

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

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by SethPDX

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.

[Stevetheump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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

The only time I bring up jewelry is when I'm doing a girl's game. As for adults, if they want to wear it, it's up to them as long as it does not present a hazard to other players.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Stevetheump

The only time I bring up jewelry is when I'm doing a girl's game. As for adults, if they want to wear it, it's up to them as long as it does not present a hazard to other players.

Speaking ASA, the same rule for all.

[Stevetheump]

Originally Posted by SethPDX

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

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Stevetheump

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.

[Stevetheump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Stevetheump

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."

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

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.

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

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 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.

[Stevetheump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

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?

[Stevetheump]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

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.

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

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Stevetheump

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?

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.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

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?