Dumbest question I've ever heard

[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?

[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?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

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?

Not unless to the point of ridiculous like a rubber band in their hair.

BTW, in HS ball, the coach is also acting in loco parentis which makes them and the school responsible for the player and their well-being. That is why (for lack of a better term) get away with simply asking a coach is his team is properly equiped to cover much of the liability issue.

[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.