|
Sat Jun 07, 2003, 09:41pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I started doing womens' adult fast pitch last year (ASA rules),the new season starts next week and I'm curious about something. The women seemed to be able to wear just about anything (multiple earrings, necklaces, etc.)without any ump saying anything. It was a couple of games into last years' season before I got a plate duty and by that time I was just following the example set by all the other umps. I always felt a little wierd letting a player with a 3 studded ear(yes I could see them through the helmet hole)and two necklaces stand at the plate but my partners said that's the way it was done in this league.
What's your feeling and do you have a limit? I'm coming off a Fed high school season where all visable jewelry was a no-no. ASA 3-6-F seems to leave it up to the ump. Opinions? 
|
|
Sat Jun 07, 2003, 10:34pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
JEWELRY
ASA, High School Federation and most rec leagues do not allow jewelry.
Michael
|
|
Sun Jun 08, 2003, 12:13am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael:
ASA basically leaves the exposed jewelry issue up to the indvidual umpire, but does not outlaw it altogether. Rule 3:6:F reads: Exposed jewelry, which is judged by the umpire to be dangerous, must be removed and may not be worn during the game. This means that jewelry may be worn so long as the umpire does not deem it a safety hazard. As a result, two individual umpires may not rule the same piece of jewelry as "dangerous." Consequently, more and more players are going onto the field with more and more jewelry. My rule of thumb is if it can get caught around something (such as a necklace), or potentially poke or rip skin, (as in ear studs) then it needs to be gone. I usually let rings stay when I am calling ASA. NFHS, USSSA and Dixie all prohibit jewelry altogether, which makes it much easier to enforce.
__________________
Scott It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to have to paint it.
|
|
Sun Jun 08, 2003, 08:38am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Many will not agree with this, but I am there to umpire a softball game, not babysit. If a parent or coach considers a piece of jewelry on their child or player, they need to take the responsibility entrusted to them by the Constitution of the United States or agreement under which they coach the team and have the jewelry removed.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|
|
Sun Jun 08, 2003, 06:51pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
My standard jewelry allowed for adults or AA is wedding rings, stud earrings (in the ears) and necklaces that stay inside the shirt. Sometimes I allow more, depending on the players and the piece itself, like very small hoop earrings.
|
|
Mon Jun 09, 2003, 02:44am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
ALL jewelry in FED is a no-no, visible or not. The only exceptions are medical alert or religious jewelry. And they must be taped to the body/wrist. And what has the Constitution to do with softball rules? Bob
|
|
Mon Jun 09, 2003, 06:39am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
ALL jewelry in FED is a no-no, visible or not. The only exceptions are medical alert or religious jewelry. And they must be taped to the body/wrist. And what has the Constitution to do with softball rules? Bob [/B][/QUOTE] Actually, quite a bit, but not in the manner you are thinking. Reread that portion of the post.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|
|
Mon Jun 09, 2003, 09:08am
|
|||
|
|||
|
By the way, I know that all jewelry is forbidden in Fed, but I don't go looking for belly button piercings or studs in the tounge. That's what I mean when I said "visable" jewelry.
|
|
Mon Jun 09, 2003, 09:55am
|
|||
|
|||
|
With kids, if I see it, is must be removed. But I don't go looking under bandages and the like.
I don't call adults, but if I did, I suspect I would call it like Mike says. They are adults, responsible for their own decisions wrt themselves. So, if it is a danger to the other players, remove it. Otherwise, freedom reigns.
__________________
Tom
|
|
Mon Jun 09, 2003, 03:29pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I think you should read the Constitution. There is nothing in that document that says that parents, or anyone else, is responsible for children. Bob
|
|
Mon Jun 09, 2003, 03:53pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Exposed jewelry, which is judged by the umpire to be dangerous, must be removed and may not be worn during the game.
One of dozens of grammatical errors in the ASA rule book. This sentence actually means that exposed jewelry is judged by the umpire to be dangerous and must be removed. I think you should read the Constitution. There is nothing in that document that says that parents, or anyone else, is responsible for children. True, but the idea that parents were responsible for their minor children was an unquestioned and undebated tenet of social organization. It was so much a part of the air the framers of the Constitution breathed that writing it down would have been viewed as a preposterous waste of time and paper. Every year, one of the men's leagues I work supplies me with a document absolving me of responsibility if anyone is injured as a result of a player wearing jewelry. Still, I wonder when I read today's U.S. News: "A disabled man sues a Florida strip club for not providing equal-access views of the stage; families of illegal immigrants who died trying to cross a desert from Mexico sue the United States for not providing water; a woman throws a soft drink at her boyfriend at a restaurant, then slips on the floor she wet and breaks her tailbone. She sues. Bingo--a jury says the restaurant owes her $100,000! A woman tries to sneak through a restroom window at a nightclub to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She falls, knocks out two front teeth, and sues. A jury awards her $12,000 for dental expenses."
__________________
greymule More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men! Roll Tide!
|
|
Mon Jun 09, 2003, 04:37pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 Maybe they could hire one of those editors who just quit the N Y Times, but then the book would be twice as big.  Talk about "a preposterous waste of time and paper": a document absolving me of responsibility if anyone is injured as a result of a player wearing jewelry.
|
|
Mon Jun 09, 2003, 10:13pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|
|
Mon Jun 09, 2003, 10:16pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Bob [/B][/QUOTE] So, you did read the statement properly and just wanted to stir things up a bit. If the constitution has nothing to do with softball, why is there an ADA rule in ASA's book? Yes, it is not directed by the constitution per se, but every law in the land is "supposedly" built upon the framework of the constitution. Granted, I don't believe it for a minute, but it can make for a pretty good argument
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|
|
Tue Jun 10, 2003, 07:27am
|
|||
|
|||
|
The only problem with this is that the organization doesn't have the authority to waive the rights of its members or their associates, in this case, most likely their insurance carriers.
Quite true. For what's it's worth (probably not much), each player also signs a document that says he cannot make any claims regarding jewelry-related injuries. Still, if that player gets a slashed face from somebody else's sharp ring, I suspect that piece of paper will be worthless. Incidentally, we're instructed to allow no jewelry at all, regardless of what the book says about the umpire has to judge it to be dangerous. But in the big slow pitch tournaments, most of the muscle men come to bat laden with chains and earrings, and nobody ever says anything.
__________________
greymule More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men! Roll Tide!
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
