I've given up.

[The Man in Blue]

For those who have not seen it yet ...

https://www.nfhs.org/articles/prohibition-of-jewelry-removed-in-high-school-baseball-rules/

“The game of baseball has evolved and players have demonstrated that wearing a bracelet or a necklace does not impede their ability to play or increase any risk to themselves or their opponents,” said Elliot Hopkins, NFHS director of sports and liaison to the Baseball Rules Committee.

(I would ask how and where they demonstrated this during an NFHS game ... I think my snark is more directed at the ludicrousness of this statement.)

[BigBlue4u]

What's ludicrous about the statement?

[Velho]

33 minutes ago, BigBlue4u said:

What's ludicrous about the statement?

Personally I find that the official statement and the OP's statement are identical in meaning but the NFHS statement is layered with about 3 feet of cow poop

On 3/28/2022 at 11:38 AM, HokieUmp said:

As we all know, there is a "jewelry rule" in NFHS sanctioned baseball.  As of this season - and I wish I could remember the specific date I decided this, as it makes for a more dramatic reading - I have officially Given Up trying to enforce that $%#^&@ rule.

On 7/22/2022 at 7:19 PM, The Man in Blue said:

“The game of baseball has evolved and players have demonstrated that wearing a bracelet or a necklace does not impede their ability to play or increase any risk to themselves or their opponents,”said Elliot Hopkins, NFHS director of sports and liaison to the Baseball Rules Committee.

[The Man in Blue]

Compare it to the softball side’s statement …

“The NFHS Softball Rules Committee has entertained this possible rule change on multiple occasions based on previous proposals submitted by the membership,” said Sandy Searcy, NFHS director of sports and liaison to the NFHS Softball Rules Committee. “This year’s overwhelming member response in favor of permitting the wearing of jewelry strongly influenced the Committee’s decision to approve this proposal. Rule language, however, continues to allow umpires the authority to expel items they deem dangerous or distracting to any player.”

On the rule itself, I have no objection to NFHS saying they want to allow jewelry.  I do have an objection to making us fashion police and placing the blame/responsibility solely on umpires while providing no guidance or formal training.

[Catch18]

I don’t know what all the fuss has been about this year. I was astounded at going the entire season and not seeing one single piece of jewelry. My hats off to the coaches and properly preparing players precisely as they should be in following the rule book. What are the odds, eh?

[MadMax]

On 7/27/2022 at 5:27 PM, The Man in Blue said:

while providing no guidance or formal training.

<sarcasm> “What are you talking about? It’s a topic of at least one if not two questions on the national test!” </sarcasm>

[The Man in Blue]

5 hours ago, MadMax said:

<sarcasm> “What are you talking about? It’s a topic of at least one if not two questions on the national test!” </sarcasm>

[ilyazhito]

Interesting. After all of this controversy NFHS decides to change the rules to make jewelry.legal. Was the safety angle just a smokescreen?

[kylehutson]

21 hours ago, ilyazhito said:

Interesting. After all of this controversy NFHS decides to change the rules to make jewelry.legal. Was the safety angle just a smokescreen?

That, or else they thought it would be, and experience has now shown otherwise.

[BigBlue4u]

FYI, the NFHS has removed the jewelry rule for 2023.  First, because studies have proven conclusively that jewelry presents little, if any, danger to players.  Secondly, well, just look at all the emails.