I would suggest that there are also some amongst us who have never bothered, or have given up asking players to remove jewelry, rather than bother with the whines and groans that can often pursue the request.  Who is right? Well as the referee on the day, you are. But does it question the inconsistencies amongst us, most certainly it does.  You've probably assumed at this stage which side of the fence I sit with
regards my viewpoint to the matter, but you could be wrong, as in reading the chapter again and again, it is far from clear whether any jewelry should be worn. What constitutes "dangerous", which is possibly the important word in the text?
Let's look at the potentially guilty items.

Stud earrings - Pretty innocuous as regards being displayed on the outer side of the ear hanging earrings - Now here we have something that potentially could be pulled, by a quick-fingered opponent.  In both cases, the back side of the earring contains sharp edges that in the event of the ear being hit, by the ball, a goal post, flag, or in the worst scenario part of a players body (possibly the fist!) it will almost certainly cut the skin and cause some degree of injury.

Eye studs ? Now these are nice little items that invariably are argued as being irremovable, will without doubt cause injury in the event that a player heads a ball, post or another player (supposedly a head) in such a manner that the stud is impacted. Of course a player could argue that he would not head the ball throughout the match and make no such attempts to go near other players with his head. In this case, it would be fair enough to allow the player to play with the eye stud left uncovered!!!

Rings on the fingers - "In my day, this was never made such an issue of, because knuckle duster type rings weren't normally worn by footballers, not that this is a fair excuse. In general, whether a ring is taped or removed is open to discussion, but the potential damage that can be caused by it, should a "wayward" hand fly through the air into an opponent's face is relevant?

Necklaces - Here again, if such a piece of jewelry was out of sight, then a referee was invariably none the wiser nor interested in the item. Possibly with the introduction of more "seductive" necklines in shirts and the desire of some individuals to wear ingots of gold etc. has prompted an acceptable stance on such jewelry.

Each of the above are most likely to be on show and therefore likely to be drawn into the discussion of "are they dangerous?, should they be removed?" How many referees having made the comment of taking off or taping up any jewelry has received the sarcastic comment of "what about the ring in my nipple?" Or even other such extremities of the body.  What would be nice to see is a clear set of wording that stipulates what is NOT to be regarded as dangerous, then there would be no misunderstanding.
Perhaps a topic for discussion at one of our future meetings. I would be very pleased to think that within our own society we adopted an approach, which was acceptable by all of us.

Mike Taylor