Confront or Leave Alone?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Andy

Our instructions with band aids or tape is to ask the player and/or coach if there is jewelry under it. If the answer is yes, the option is given to the player to remove it and play or not remove it and not play.

If the answer is no, we are to accept it and go forward.

I think whoever gave you those instructions needs to ask another level up if that's the instruction they should be giving...

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I think whoever gave you those instructions needs to ask another level up if that's the instruction they should be giving...

Why? What would you say differently?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Why? What would you say differently?

If you know there's jewelry there and you don't have it removed, you are allowing them to break the rules and you are creating a safety hazard.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

If you know there's jewelry there and you don't have it removed, you are allowing them to break the rules and you are creating a safety hazard.

So, your difference with Andy is the possibility of accepting the player's word that it is not when you know it is. Hopefully, if you know it is, the question is not asked, as that means "visible".

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

So, your difference with Andy is the possibility of accepting the player's word that it is not when you know it is. Hopefully, if you know it is, the question is not asked, as that means "visible".

In the situation we're discussing, the umpire knows - and then suddenly a band-aid is there where the earring was. Letting it go at this point is irresponsible.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

In the situation we're discussing, the umpire knows - and then suddenly a band-aid is there where the earring was. Letting it go at this point is irresponsible.

Ouch...

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Ouch...

Manny, for the record, I have no issue at all with the way you handled the first one. The second one, though, should have been addressed. I know you don't want to make a big show -and I get that. But unless this was coach's (and player's) very first game ever - they knew the rule and knew exactly what they were doing when they band-aided over it. They were kind of giving you the finger, don't you think?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Just for giggles, let me throw out what I understand as generally accepted practice and responsibility at various levels.

In the NCAA (and any other collegiate level), umpires have no responsibility, liability, or even a rule to address regarding jewelry. Players are considered adults, responsible for themselves; the coach makes any decision about what is acceptable on that team.

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.

NFHS doesn't allow any jewelry or "adornment"; it isn't specifically related to safety, there is added concern about gang language and/or colors, and enough unrelated issues to go 100% with "if it isn't softball-related, get it off". The rules make the schools, in loco parentis act as legal guardians, and their representative, the head coach, responsible to assure all players are legally and properly equipped. The umpire has responsibility to notify the coach when you see the violation, and to refuse to allow participation if the violation is uncorrected. If you do travel ball based on NFHS rules without amendment, you have a dilemma; the coach is NOT legally in loco parentis, and since the rules require 100% jewelry and adornment-free, you are potentially liable for any jewelry not removed.

So, how do you deal with bandaids and tape? If you never see jewelry, nothing about a bandaid or tape can/should be reasonably judged dangerous. It certainly isn't dangling, and unlikely to be dangerous to an opponent in ASA. In the NFHS arena, it is, at least, suspicious. Asking the coach, while reminding that their answer imputes personal liability on their part, if there is jewelry, makes him not only a witness to your concern, but additionally a co-conspirator if the response is a falsehood/lie. In my state, that is considered sufficient; we do not proceed to call that coach a liar. If there is an injury in that game related to this, or other reason to determine there was, in fact, jewelry there, you better believe a written game report advising the coach was questioned and responded with a lie will cover your a$$, and shift the liability where it belongs. Again, in my state, that will more than likely result in the school being fined by the state association; and a strong awareness that lying about it isn't a good plan anymore.

But, if you see jewelry on the field, and advise that the player may not participate without removal, be it by direction in ASA or formal warning under NFHS, you better be sure it is removed. This is even MORE true if travel ball based on NFHS without a more specific jewelry directive. That tape or bandaid better be covering nothing more than the hole that she believes will close up or get infected during this game time, because no judge or jury will accept you being so unaware as to believe she just now acquired matching mosquito bites with odd-shaped lumps underneath. You will likely assume some partial liability in that case, if it ever gets that far.

As is often stated, ymmv (your mileage my vary).

[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.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

In the situation we're discussing, the umpire knows - and then suddenly a band-aid is there where the earring was. Letting it go at this point is irresponsible.

t is entirely conceivable to me that a player who did indeed just have the ears pierced and then had to remove the earrings in order to continue playing would put a bandage over the hole to prevent the possibility of infection. It is , unfortunately also conceivable to me that a player would cover the offending earring thinking that would be good enough. I would like to think that if I came across that situation, I would go to the player and her coach and ask them to confirm to me that the jewelry was removed.
I will not ask anyone to remove the bandage and show me.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

t is entirely conceivable to me that a player who did indeed just have the ears pierced and then had to remove the earrings in order to continue playing would put a bandage over the hole to prevent the possibility of infection.

Fair enough. I submit that in 99% of the cases it's REALLY obvious that the bandaid is covering the earring you just told them to remove.. or it's obvious that it's not (i.e., it's flat).

If in doubt, I have no problem leaving it alone or simply asking. But if it's clear what they did, it must be addressed.