Another step in the wussification of America

[Boonedawg]

Sad situation but I think It's the risk you take for playing sports. Life isn't fair or safe.
I think the parents are trying to lay the blame on the wrong people. If ANYONE is at fault It's them for letting him play baseball. The parent is responsible for the welfare of the kid no one else. Unfortunate accidents don't always leave someone to blame, thats why they call them ACCIDENTS.

[Joe Strummer]

In many places, metal bats are already outlawed.

From: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080517/ap_ ... l_injury_1

"New York City and North Dakota have banned metal bats for youth and school sports, and New Jersey is considering a similar ban."

Two = many?

Another misguided argument from the big file labeled "if it saves one life, it's worth it".

[caglewis]

It's terrible what happened to the boy...but these people are taking advantage over tragedy. Yes, they need help with the bills, but suing the makers of the bat? COME ON! Sue the batter!

It's a tragedy that this boy was hurt so badly...but how many times does this happen? I know I'm very b&w and maybe kind of offensive to some...but what's next? Playing football with a Nerf ball instead of a regular one because the regular football is too hard?

Whodey - I agree that suing the bat manufacturer is wrong - baseball is dangerous, and most parents should know that - but looking for things to reduce the risk to kids isn't necessarily a bad thing. Particularly if there are easy remedies to problems. In this case, I think that (outside the potential for protective equipment) there is very little you can do without altering the game. A softer ball (ie., t-ball) would do more to reduce injuries than a wood bat...but you'd drastically change the game in terms of hitting power. Some would argue that this might increase competitiveness in the play because you'd have fielders making more plays on the ball..I am not so sure.

That said - it is incumbent upon people involved in youth sports to make them as safe as possible. Remember, there was a time when football players grew their hair long instead of wearing helmets - when facemasks weren't used - when hockey players didn't wear helmets - etc. I don't think improving safety is necessarily "wussifying" anything - it is being smart. Sure, you can take it too far, but I certainly don't want my kid killed when something could've prevented his/her death simply because someone want to be "manly".

As a personal example, my kids ride dirt-bikes - when they ride they wear a lot of protective gear (that a lot of kids don't wear), including neck protection. In my day, I rode in tennis shoes, jeans, and crappy helmet from K-mart...I don't think that was because I was tougher, I think it was because my parents didn't even consider spending the extra money on protective gear..it wasn't necessarily the norm - my opinion is that if that $20 protector keeps one of my kids from being paralyzed, it was well worth the wussification.

I absolutely agree! Well said!!!! Great post!!!

[kantuckyII]

I also remember when people used to take a knife and cut their seat belts out of the car so they wouldn't be in the way...they had cars that lacked safety glass and a steering column which didn't collapse and would ram into your body. People were a lot tougher in them days..they weren't afraid of being tossed through that glass!

What would it hurt to use a ball with a different core that would be less likely to cause fatalities? it would still cause 'em a lot of pain

[RH@OU]

I also remember when people used to take a knife and cut their seat belts out of the car so they wouldn't be in the way...they had cars that lacked safety glass and a steering column which didn't collapse and would ram into your body. People were a lot tougher in them days..they weren't afraid of being tossed through that glass!

What would it hurt to use a ball with a different core that would be less likely to cause fatalities? it would still cause 'em a lot of pain

I completely agree. Last time I checked kids weren't being paid millions to drive the ball out of the park. It doesn't matter a bit to soften up the ball some. I remember my T-ball days playing with a standard baseball. I remember a kid taking a ground ball that had an awkward skip (rock) and it smashing him in the face. The kid immediately falls to the ground, parents are on the field, for about 10 minutes there is silence and panic at 2nd base. The kid eventually gets up, leaves the game and is ok. But, what if that kid had been hit just right to cause more damage. That also wasn't easy to watch as a child.

Some of these children don't even make the choice to play. They're either forced into it, or they want to play b/c of siblings, or b/c they want the free hot hog.

I have to agree with Kantucky on this one. That is someone's child as is every kid on the field. Reformatting a baseball would go a long way.

[whodeyAtown21]

lmao, yeah, okay...kids only do it because they're forced to or they want something free? HAHA! Not once in my childhood did my parents ever force me to do any sports and I can bet you one or two MAYBE three kids on the time did it for something free.

So the kid was okay? What was that story about? A kid ALMOST getting hurt? WOW! I ALMOST went over the speeding limit in my car, man, I should have gotten my license taken away. Besides, that should just be incentive for the kid to catch the ball!! Seriously! The parents and the child both knew the risks when they signed up. If you're not fine with the risks, DON'T PLAY!

It's one thing to be a little safer, but you can easily cross the line!

[hdfatboy]

The parents and the child both knew the risks when they signed up. If you're not fine with the risks, DON'T PLAY!

I understand that you are not agaisnt improving safety, but I also thing you are making assumptions that don't neccessarily hold true. I talk to a lot of parents involved with the teams I coach, and very few of them actually "know" the risks. Because baseball is non-contact they tend to think of it as a "safe" sport. This is especially true of the children. You aren't talking about high school age kids here, they don't think about risks.

Again, if you can do something to reduce injuries without fundamentally changing the game, I think it is the responsible thing to do.

Believe me, I am not one of those over-reacting parents - my kid took a bad hop last year during All-Star practice that loosened his front teeth, and busted both upper and lower lips pretty badly - my response was to clean him up and put him right back in the drill.....but afterward I made him wear a mouthpiece whenever he played in the infield. I didn't worry at all about wussifying - I figured his permanent teeth were worth protecting.

[whodeyAtown21]

I understand that you are not agaisnt improving safety, but I also thing you are making assumptions that don't neccessarily hold true. I talk to a lot of parents involved with the teams I coach, and very few of them actually "know" the risks. Because baseball is non-contact they tend to think of it as a "safe" sport. This is especially true of the children. You aren't talking about high school age kids here, they don't think about risks.

Again, if you can do something to reduce injuries without fundamentally changing the game, I think it is the responsible thing to do.

Believe me, I am not one of those over-reacting parents - my kid took a bad hop last year during All-Star practice that loosened his front teeth, and busted both upper and lower lips pretty badly - my response was to clean him up and put him right back in the drill.....but afterward I made him wear a mouthpiece whenever he played in the infield. I didn't worry at all about wussifying - I figured his permanent teeth were worth protecting.

Okay, you keep it up and it's libel. I am not against improving safety. Say it again, I'll report the reply and consider proper authorities for libel. Do not put words in my mouth. It's one thing to improve safety, it's another to take it too far.

If they don't know the risks, it's the leagues fault for not showing them the risks. That or the parents are just naive.

You act like I don't care about children. That is just your ignorance. There's a difference between safety and wussifying. I surely don't to be lead by people in America who have been babied their entire life.

So, watch what you say. This isn't a joke. I take libel very seriously.

[Boonedawg]

I see both points. Ive no great love for aluminum bats, yeah they swing faster but you can drive a ball just as hard with wood. Hard enough to kill someone. Point is you can die in a second in this life a million ways. That's no reason to stop LIVING. accidents happen, always have and always will.

While I feel for the parents I think they are misguided on trying to lay blame on the bat. The bat isn't at fault, the hitter isn't at fault nor baseball. No fault just an accident. I think there is an ambulance chaser attorney who is pushing this somewhere. Sueing little league baseball.....thats flippin low.

[caglewis]

whodey - You're the one who used the term "wussification" - an inherently derrogatory and insulting term - in your subject line. Why do you feel the need to call it "libel" if people choose to disagree with you and point out opposing arguements or express other opinions in response to your comment?

[hdfatboy]

I understand that you are not agaisnt improving safety, but I also thing you are making assumptions that don't neccessarily hold true. I talk to a lot of parents involved with the teams I coach, and very few of them actually "know" the risks. Because baseball is non-contact they tend to think of it as a "safe" sport. This is especially true of the children. You aren't talking about high school age kids here, they don't think about risks.

Again, if you can do something to reduce injuries without fundamentally changing the game, I think it is the responsible thing to do.

Believe me, I am not one of those over-reacting parents - my kid took a bad hop last year during All-Star practice that loosened his front teeth, and busted both upper and lower lips pretty badly - my response was to clean him up and put him right back in the drill.....but afterward I made him wear a mouthpiece whenever he played in the infield. I didn't worry at all about wussifying - I figured his permanent teeth were worth protecting.

Okay, you keep it up and it's libel. I am not against improving safety. Say it again, I'll report the reply and consider proper authorities for libel. Do not put words in my mouth. It's one thing to improve safety, it's another to take it too far.

If they don't know the risks, it's the leagues fault for not showing them the risks. That or the parents are just naive.

You act like I don't care about children. That is just your ignorance. There's a difference between safety and wussifying. I surely don't to be lead by people in America who have been babied their entire life.

So, watch what you say. This isn't a joke. I take libel very seriously.

Boy you sure do love throwing around the "libel" term don't you? By the way, why is it you're allowed to make all kinds of assumptions about other people's ignorance, naivety, and whether or not they've been babied all their lives...but no one else can present anything even slightly different than what you say without your threats of "libel"?

Apparently you are for safety, but have reading comprehension issues - the very first line in what you quoted says "I understand that you are NOT against improving safety". In fact, throughout this whole conversation I have said that I agree with you that the lawsuit is silly - but your "wussification" comment makes it look like you are fairly extreme on the other side of the coin and that you haven't really thought through this whole issue and that any move toward safety runs the risk of "wussifying" someone. Can safety be taken too far? Absolutely, I agree with you on that. Are there people out there who refuse to allow safety innovations to be used because it isn't macho and they are afraid wussifying things? Absolutely.

I would love to know what part of my post truly bothers you - because I cannot see where it says anything about you at all other than that your assumption about "known risks" is potentially wrong.

[hdfatboy]

I see both points. Ive no great love for aluminum bats, yeah they swing faster but you can drive a ball just as hard with wood. Hard enough to kill someone. Point is you can die in a second in this life a million ways. That's no reason to stop LIVING. accidents happen, always have and always will.

While I feel for the parents I think they are misguided on trying to lay blame on the bat. The bat isn't at fault, the hitter isn't at fault nor baseball. No fault just an accident. I think there is an ambulance chaser attorney who is pushing this somewhere. Sueing little league baseball.....thats flippin low.

That's true - I have seen some studies that indicate that at the youth level the speed to ball comes off the bat isn't all the much different off the standard aluminum bat and a wood bat. People also tend to not mention that kids have been killed by balls hit off wooden bats.

A lawsuit against the bat manufacturer is silly.

The reality is, as has been said before, there are ways to reduce the risk of catastrophic injury without changing the fundamental nature of the game. Something as simple as a chest protector that is light-weight and disperses energy over the upper torso would do the trick. But since they aren't required, and people don't think about them - they exist but aren't used. Plus no one wants to look like a "sissy" by wearing one.

[whodeyAtown21]

You just need to watch what you say. You were putting words in my mouth.

I do love the term libel, because not many people know when they are crossing the line.

"The best defense for libel is telling the truth" -Tucker Max

Find one time that I said I was against safety.

Just watch what you say.

[Der_Kommissar1968]

You just need to watch what you say. You were putting words in my mouth.

I do love the term libel, because not many people know when they are crossing the line.

"The best defense for libel is telling the truth" -Tucker Max

Find one time that I said I was against safety.

Just watch what you say.

Ummmm, Whodey . . . I read Fatboy's post several times just to make sure, and he never said that. He said that he understands that you are NOT against improving safety. You're way off base here.

Libel, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is any "publication that is injurious to the reputation of another . . . a maliciously written or printed publication which tends to blacken a person's reputation or to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to injure him in his business or profession."

Even if Fatboy had said that, AND HE DIDN'T, no one would hold you in contempt, and you wouldn't be exposed to public hatred.

[whodeyAtown21]

edit posts, ignorance, it's all great.

Why don't you try to find out what I was actually posting the article for before you start making claims as to what I said.

Libel was probably too strong of a word, but hdfatboy needs to watch what he/she says towards me.

[Der_Kommissar1968]

Hmmm, still don't get your beef. It looks to me that he may have edited it to correct a spelling error. But beyond that, it seems you're barking up the wrong tree.

[whodeyAtown21]

maybe, justttt maybe, I misread the post

...

[hdfatboy]

You just need to watch what you say. You were putting words in my mouth.

I do love the term libel, because not many people know when they are crossing the line.

"The best defense for libel is telling the truth" -Tucker Max

Find one time that I said I was against safety.

Just watch what you say.

Do you comprehend in the irony of you complaining about what you appear to feel is a frivolous lawsuit...then start throwing out threat of libel about an internet board conversation?

PLEASE point out exactly where I put words in your mouth. Don't worry, I am well aware of when I am crossing the line and when I am not.

Why would I want to find one time were you said you were against safety...I NEVER claimed you said that. Do you really have that much trouble understanding the words "I understand that you are NOT against improving safety"? You are apparently having trouble comprehending that I have essentially been in agreement with you on the basic premise of your post.

In an earlier post you yourself pointed out "Maybe wussification is a wrong term, but I made the article mainly for the lawsuit part. Maybe I didn't portray my views very well in this thread, but I just don't want to see more things like the ban of tag". That's a very reasonable statement - then you go on in a later post to say "The parents and the child both knew the risks when they signed up" which is a major assumption on your part that my experience tells me is not true. If you are truly 18, as your profile says, I can guarantee you that I have a great deal more experience dealing with youth sports, players and parents, than you do...my experience tells me that your statement regarding known risks does not hold true...particularly with regard to the child.

Oh, and by the way, regarding the "ban on tag" story...that school has since rescinded that ban.

[hdfatboy]

If you look closely, I never edited the post that got whodey all bent out of shape. It says what it said from the moment I posted it.

So, whodey are you accusing me of editing things to make it look like you are wrong...since I didn't do that...would that be libel on your part?

Don't worry whodey, I won't threaten you with libel. I am cool with you misreading my post.

[whodeyAtown21]

Hate to admit being wrong, but every time I read it I thought you were saying I was against safety.

I guess I'm fine with being wrong...SOMETIMES.

My bad