Town Square

Little League Rules do not Need to Change for Your Kid

Original post made by grow up, Downtown, on Jun 22, 2012

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 story contains 251 words.

If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.

If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.


Like this comment
Posted by jasper
a resident of Downtown
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.

Like this comment
Posted by Bill
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
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.

Like this comment
Posted by Arnold
a resident of Another Pleasanton 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.

Like this comment
Posted by Kangaroo
a resident of another community
on Jun 23, 2012 at 11:04 am

Everything IS black and white! When you make everything gray NOTHING MATTERS!