Confront or Leave Alone?

[Dakota]

Steve did a very good job of explaining the situation as I see it. Since the thread is about a high school game, my comments are limited to a HS contest played under NFHS rules.

The NFHS does not give umpires any room for judgment wrt jewelry. If you observe it, there is an escalating penalty by rule: 1st offense, team warning; 2nd offense, offending player and HC restricted to the bench.

In no case is a player wearing jewelry to be allowed to play. She may keep her jewelry on (we cannot order her to take it off), but she may not play if she is wearing it.

Speaking personally, unless I have observed or heard something that would inform me otherwise -- see my last sentence in this post , I do not assume a bandaid on the ear (or nose) to be hiding jewelry. I am not so naive as all that, but OTOH, I am not going to personally inspect the player to confirm one way or the other.

In the situation where a player's coach is informed that the player is wearing jewelry (I don't discuss it with the players themselves; I leave that to the coach. I also handle the penalty issues at that time as well - i.e. warning on first offense, etc.), IF that player shows back up on the field with a bandaid covering where the jewelry was, I would certainly again discuss this with the coach; specifically asking the coach to confirm that the player did, in fact, remove the jewelry rather than just cover it with a bandaid.

BTW, I once had a HS player ask me before the game if covering ear studs with a bandaid was permissible!

[CecilOne]

A lot of the problem for the players, the players, is that ASA & PONY allow ITUJ about the danger and the players expect that to carry over to anywhere. As I vaguely remember being 15, I probably would think the same thing.

As coaches usually either faculty with an extra stipend, or travel ball coaches, both of whom are more worried about the lineup and infield drill; neither the players or coaches give jewelry a thought ahead of time.

Sooo, what to do? Maybe, "coach, are your bats and helmets ready to inspect and the jewelry rule enforced?"

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

A lot of the problem for the players, the players, is that ASA & PONY allow ITUJ about the danger and the players expect that to carry over to anywhere. As I vaguely remember being 15, I probably would think the same thing.

As coaches usually either faculty with an extra stipend, or travel ball coaches, both of whom are more worried about the lineup and infield drill; neither the players or coaches give jewelry a thought ahead of time.

Sooo, what to do? Maybe, "coach, are your bats and helmets ready to inspect and the jewelry rule enforced?"

To start, unless you are referring to NFHS, this is a wasted statement that carries zero weight ANYWHERE and how is a coach to know what "jewelry rule" would be enforced since it relies solely on the umpire's judgment?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

In ASA and many other travel ball associations, umpires are responsible to refuse to allow any jewelry they consider dangerous (either to an opponent, or to the player herself). Some refuse to make any judgment, and declare any/all jewelry dangerous; others use judgment, which may vary from umpire to umpire, while most would require watches and anything dangling to be removed, leaving studs and tight earrings or necklaces alone. While your judgment can be argued, the rules allow you to avoid liability absent "gross negligence", generally described as knowing it is dangerous, and knowingly ignoring it.

I only worry about something which can injure another. If a parent/coach responsible for that player's life doesn't have a problem with a player wearing a stud or piercing that cannot hurt another while playing softball, I don't see where it is my place to usurp their authority.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

A lot of the problem for the players, the players, is that ASA & PONY allow ITUJ about the danger and the players expect that to carry over to anywhere. As I vaguely remember being 15, I probably would think the same thing.

As coaches usually either faculty with an extra stipend, or travel ball coaches, both of whom are more worried about the lineup and infield drill; neither the players or coaches give jewelry a thought ahead of time.

Sooo, what to do? Maybe, "coach, are your bats and helmets ready to inspect and the jewelry rule enforced?"

During the pre-game conference (a/k/a grounds rules) ask the coach, "Are your players legally and properly equipped and will they remain so for the entirety of the game?"

If you find a player violating a rule, call the coach out on it.

Umpires need to stop addressing players. Address to coaches for God's sake. People wonder why they find an additional two or three players with jewelry on. Tell the coach and let them handle it. Without missing a beat, they almost always turn to their dugout and say, "Nobody better have on any jewelry."

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

To start, unless you are referring to NFHS, this is a wasted statement that carries zero weight ANYWHERE and how is a coach to know what "jewelry rule" would be enforced since it relies solely on the umpire's judgment?

Of course, this topic is about NFHS.

And, it's opinion and an attempt at insight to why this is so common a problem in HS; and a suggestion for trying to reduce it.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Of course, this topic is about NFHS.

And, it's opinion and an attempt at insight to why this is so common a problem in HS; and a suggestion for trying to reduce it.

Well, AFA liability, it is a wasted statement in any game, in this country

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Well, AFA liability, it is a wasted statement in any game, in this country

I guess you mean this:
"coach, are your bats and helmets ready to inspect and the jewelry rule enforced?"

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

I guess you mean this:
"coach, are your bats and helmets ready to inspect and the jewelry rule enforced?"

I mean anything. To some level, regardless of whom states what or provides any assurances, the umpire will always be in jeopardy of being accused of being liable.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I mean anything. To some level, regardless of whom states what or provides any assurances, the umpire will always be in jeopardy of being accused of being liable.

Well, true, but "being in jeopardy of being accused" is a pretty low hurdle.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Well, true, but "being in jeopardy of being accused" is a pretty low hurdle.

Sure is, but that doesn't mean you will not need to get a lawyer to defend yourself in a court. Of course, you just thought, "wait, I've got insurance that will cover me for liability issues". And it is quite possible that one of the first things that lawyer will tell you is that you may want to retain your own attorney for any possible damages beyond what the insurer may cover.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Insane Blue

Just today I had a catcher with band-aids on both ears. first time the helmet came off I stopped action and had her remove them. I got the usual response they are new and will get infected. I gave her the same choice I always do you remove them or I remove you.

We have been told that we are not to ask players with bandages on to remove a bandage, be it on the ears, wrist or fingers. If we see a bandage we are to assume it is an injury being covered. We have also been told that we should remind the coach that jewelry can not be taped or bandaged over, it must be removed. Normally this gets the players attention, but I have seen cases where the player tells and umpire that it is covering an injury and the bandage stays on. I have also seen cases where later in the game, the bandage comes off and now jewelry is exposed. At this point we have a jewelry issue and it is handled accordingly.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

... the player tells an umpire that it is covering an injury and the bandage stays on...later in the game, the bandage comes off and now jewelry is exposed. At this point we have a jewelry issue and it is handled accordingly.

Question: is the initial lie also a violation in and of itself?

(I realize I selectively edited the post to make it say something that it didn't quite say... but that was so I could pose the question...)

[charliej47]

I would have a second violation and an ejection for unsporting behavior.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Question: is the initial lie also a violation in and of itself?

(I realize I selectively edited the post to make it say something that it didn't quite say... but that was so I could pose the question...)

You are correct, but since the initial lie was not handled with the official warning, you can't penalize the player or coach under the rule (IMO).

I could see someone ejecting the player however because lying to an umpire could be considered unsportsmanlike conduct and as such, under HS rule 3-6-13 "Unsporting acts shall not be committed, including BUT NOT LIMITED TO ...."