Little League Rules do not Need to Change for Your Kid Comments on Stories, posted by grow up, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Jun 22, 2012 at 9:23 am
Kathy Rheel complains that the national Little League rules need to be changed when they do not suit her. There should be gray areas to allow for things that come up during the season.
This is a perfect example of a Mommie trying to "fix" everything in her kid's life so that the kid has no conflict, always gets what he wants and always goes home with a trophy. That is not how life works!
When your kid drinks and drives or does a little drugs and gets caught, should those rules be changed also? How about when the kid gets a job and thinks he should not actually have to show up when he doesn't want to? Will the employer allow for that gray area too? You are making an emotional cripple out of your kid if you think you need to always step in and smooth everything out so that life never throws him a curve.
Dear Mommie -- it's called personal responsibility. Stop trying to change rules that do not fit with your personal desires. Think about this: if your team had met all of the requirements and some other team was allowed to change the rules, how much would you now be complaining had that other team beaten yours?
I am sick to death of helicopter parents who try to mold the world to their desires. Let your kid learn about real life, you do him no favors by behaving this way.
Posted by jasper, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Jun 22, 2012 at 9:46 am
ok she's agreed to supply the team with bats, balls,uniforms, hot dogs and drinks after the game. So her kid from now on get four strikes when he comes up, we let steal second occasionally and pitch a perfect game on the last day of the season.
Posted by Bill, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Jun 22, 2012 at 4:31 pm
Baseball is all about rules. Reading the Pleasanton Patch comments, I got the impression that Kathy was just disappointed that her son's team did not get to play in a tournament because the team could only field 8 players and the tournament rules require that a full team be fielded, which is 9 players. If you are a fan of soccer you know that a full team is 11 players but a game can be played with only 7. In this case the fewer number of players is a disadvantage. But in baseball having fewer players can be an advantage. A baseball team wins on the strength of its hitters, not fielders. If you can get rid of a weak hitter, you have a better chance of winning the game. This is why the rules are what they are. Having less players in baseball is an advantage and this is why Kathy's son's team was not allowed to play.
Posted by Arnold, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jun 23, 2012 at 8:34 am
There actually is a widely validated metric system that shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is better to go without a fielder than to have him/her as a weak hitter. By this measure, it follows that a 'fiscally conservative' team that wants to eliminate bloated, unsustainable salaries for weak hitters should do away with them, despite, say, union rules or rules of the game. Three weak hitting outfielders should be removed from the line-up. The team of 6 will therefore have a much better chance of winning the game than a team of 9. The 6 will offer positive additive value to the team; the absence of fielders will relieve the tax burden for all of us. Why have an unfunded liability of a 9-player team when the job can be done better by 6 players? At least as serious: There are storm clouds on the horizon which, if we don't remove our outfielders (and maybe our catcher) soon, the entire field will be washed away.