What do you think about this?

MommyToAshley wrote: A nine year old boy was banned from the baseball league for being too good.
http://www.komonews.com/sports/27386894.html

My first thought was that is ridiculous. He shouldn't be banned for being good. But, then towards the end of the article it stated that it was offered to play against older players. To me, that makes more sense... it's just like any other sport or activity that has different skill levels. If everyone on the other teams are beginners, I would think he would enjoy playing against other players of the same skill level.

mammag replied: Wow, that's a tough one. On the one hand I feel it is wrong to not let him play if he isn't doing anything that is against the rules. I think it was crappy that the other team forfeited the game. What kind of message did that send to the kids on that team? That unless you can win you don't play? Since he's never hurt anyone there should have been no reason to quit like that. It may have inspired some of the kids or even teach them how to keep playing under pressure.

On the other hand, they did offer to let him play against older kids or in a different league. I know in one of the Jiu-Jitus tournaments the kids participate in, they did that. This isn't a national tournament, just one to give the kids the chance to grapple with other kids in the area and kind of get their feet wet. There is a kid from our school that is heavy for his age (just a stocky athletic build, not fat) and is really a natural at grappling. After a couple of matches they moved him to the higher age group. I thought this was a good move. First of all it gave the kids in that age group a more even playing field. They pretty much knew if they went up against him they would be flat on their backs. When you are new to the sport that can be very intimidating and might make them fear competing in the future. It also benefited him because without a challenge you don't have as much of a chance to improve your skills. It was good for him to have to work for a win. It makes him all the more better. However, if they had left him in his age group, I wouldn't have necessarily thought that was unfair either.

It must be hard to find a balance between not raising wimpy kids who can't take defeat and not discouraging kids when they are new to a sport.

MommyToAshley replied:
That is a good point too.... I think what the other teams did was pretty crappy. I don't think it was right for the other team to forfeit or the league to out-right ban him. He didn't do anything wrong, he was just good at what he does. I think moving up to the older league is a good solution, I wonder why he didn't accept it. But, it was his choice and he shouldn't have been kicked out of the league for being good.

punkeemunkee'smom replied: I think it is wrong! What will stop them from banning the next child who isn't good enough now? Competative sports is supposed to be just that, competative. Banning a kid that is good.....where do they think major leaguers come from?

Boo&BugsMom replied: Well, here are my thoughts.

I do think it sends the wrong message when you forfeit a game for those reasons. I don't like sending the message to just quit. I hate quitting. HOWEVER, if the other kids can't even bat or anything due to this...what really is the point in playing then? KWIM? If they actually can't play the game, what's the point?

I wonder WHY the kid chose to not play in the other league. Is it because he didn't want the challenge? Is it because he knew he could win staying where he is at? If that's the case, I think that's wrong and selfish.

They said it's a developmental league, not a competitive league, so I understand their reasonings. I am trying to imagine my child on that team or another team. If my child isn't even able to play due to another child having the ability of an adult, then I would be irritated that my child couldn't gain the experience necessary to better himself at the game. I don't pay money for my child to not play the game. If I were signing my child up for a competitive league, that's one thing, but signing up for something that is "suppose to get their feet wet" (per the article)...??? A league for fun is different than a competitive league.

They DID give him the opportunity to go to a different league to be paired up with kids his own ability, and he turned it down. IMO, you snooze you lose, and he should have taken it. If I were his mom, I would have not given him the choice or told him what might happen if he didn't take it. They tried to work with him and his mom, and that wasn't satisfying enough for them. I think the leauge did their best at trying to come up with a solution, and the family was too stubborn to go with it. Well, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

I think I'm on the league's side, given the info given already. It's not just about this ONE kid, it's about EVERYONE and all the kids involved as well.. Sounds like the league has everyone's best interest in mind, but the family doesn't, IMO.

redchief replied: I read the story over and over, just to make sure I got it right. Jericho wasn't offered a spot on a team in a more competitive league. He was offered a spot on what appears to be the "premier" team in the same league. That he decided to play for another team, apparently one that wasn't "supposed" to win, seems to be the driving argument for banning the poor kid. Further, the coach of the team and the league are at odds about what exactly was done regarding Jericho's current team. Frankly, it appears to me that the league administrators are crying foul because this kid is better than their all-star hitters. In any case, someone is lying, and having had been party to little league politics in the past, I tend to go with the coach, and Jericho's mother's side of the story. Something is stinky in Connecticut.

Boo&BugsMom replied: He was still offered a spot with other kids who are "better skilled" and more his level, and they turned it down...competitive or not. WHO would do that??? I'd like to know why. Anyone who is in it for the right reasons, IMO, would have taken the opportunity.

Boo&BugsMom replied: I also do have to add though...I have never seen this kid play. Is he SO good that he ranks up their with some adults, or just "excelled" in his pitching? I guess I'd really have to see HOW good the kid is to determine where I really stand.

redchief replied:
I don't know why he would have turned down a spot on the premier team in the league. Perhaps there is even more to the story than we're reading. Like I said, I've been involved in little league politics in the past, and I tell you, it can be ugly. The administrators are usually loaded from one or two consistently strong teams, and they have no problem with squashing healthy competition with rules. The only thing that they offered the kid, as I see it, was a spot on the team that is expected to win the league championship, as not necessarily written by the league administrators. That Jericho's team was beating all comers seems to the biggest problem, and that's certainly not fair play. Let's not forget that by little league rules, Jericho was only allowed to pitch, at max, every other game, so his team was apparently better than they were supposed to be anyway at 8-0. Like I said, this isn't so much about a kid playing below his ability level as it is about politics. It's a shame parents have to be involved in little league sports; I bet the kids could figure it all out just fine without the selfish parents' involvement.

lisar replied: When I played softball we had to try out to play. There were A teams and B teams and C teams. The A team was the most advanced players. I always got A team by the way. But then we played against only A teams. It made it fair to me. We played against people with our own skill levels.

stella6979 replied:
Jeff and I had this discussion last night and I pretty much said everything you just did. My whole thing is that it is a beginners league and apparently this kid is no beginner. I'm just not sure how I'd feel about my 8 year old standing in a batters box against a kid that throws 40 mph. I would be terrified so I can only imagine how the kids must feel.

BAC'sMom replied: It smells like crapola to me. And in this little league Momma eyes it’s teaching the children the wrong lesson. I think they should let the boy play no matter what. Let’s say for example there was a child that had a physical challenge; would it be right to deny that child from playing? No it wouldn’t so why penalize this child and his team because he is a good player. So with that said I will have to agree with Ed once again. It sounds like old fashion little league politics to me.

luvmykids replied:
My thoughts exactly. What really got me irked is the league saying it's intimidating for beginners to have to hit against him.....huh? Sounds to me like a bunch of whiny kids cried foul because he's better than them.

I know many people will argue it's a safety thing, but he's never hurt anyone and other little leaguers pitch at 70mph...I think it's a crappy political power play by someone who is too big for his britches.

Boo&BugsMom replied:
Exactly. It's no different than when we are playing sports with our own kids. Do we use our full force? No! I wouldn't be pitching Tanner a ball with all my strength.

And if there were a kid who were really bad as compared to a situation like this, I think that is totally different...apples and oranges to me.

holley79 replied: I think it should be based on skill level for sure.

My2Beauties replied: I have to agree with Ed on this one, it's all politics on the ball field. We've been around the ball field and my husband even helped coach and the coaches who kiss butt get the best players, first picks, etc...every single year. It's a bunch of BS and I'm sorry but sounds like these parents are raising some sore losers!

Bamamom replied:
I think that would be awesome but then you KNOW that some parent who thinks their kid is the next A-Rod is going to complain, and perhaps sue, when their kid is placed on the B team. "You hurt my child's self-esteem." "He was so depressed that we had to medicate him." And so on and so forth. Some kids are just more skilled at certain ages than others - and that's okay. It doesn't mean they won't be good at it one day. But in todays world so many parents think they are judged by what their kids do that they can't accept that their kids aren't all stars from day one.

Crystalina replied: I think he should be able to stay on his original team. So he's really good? So? He should be able to play on his original team and with his age group no matter how good he is. The other kids may benefit from him being that good. Who's to say he'll only make them look bad. Challenging them won't hurt. To me it's like coddling them. I can't see that. I say leave him on the team and maybe in a year or two he'll find that there are other great pitchers on team. He has a talent right now.

Crystalina replied:
Yes Lisa but that's when kids had to actually try out for teams. They don't do that anymore because someones feelings may get hurt if he/she doesn't make it. We can't have kids learning that they need to "try" to earn something. That would be getting them ready for real life and people just don't do that anymore. (GOD FORBID) Now , as long as Mommy and Daddy can write the check their little angel makes the team.

Not all kids are cut out for everything their parents want them to play. There are so many other sports and activities they can do and I think a child will enjoy something that their good at rather then something that their parents have paid for them to participate in.

stella6979 replied:
If it wasn't a beginners league I would totally agree.

BAC'sMom replied: I asked my kids how they felt about this subject and here is the answers they gave me. If he is good at his sport let him play, it’s all about fun anyway who cares if you lose, I think maybe their coach needs to have them work on their batting so they can get better. Gotta love that one.

In our little league if you are in minors you do not have to try out but after you move up to majors you do have to try out. It’s just not about writing out a check.

jcc64 replied: I am, like Ed, very familiar with the atrocious adult behavior surrounding little league, and I am fairly certain he's dead on. Sounds like sour grapes on the part of the league administrators. Why didn't he want to play with another team, idk, he's a kid, maybe he wanted to stay on the team with his friends/peers??? Is that so wrong at 9 yrs old?
As Ed pointed out, every kid in little league is only permitted to throw 65 pitches a week. I think this would be a good time to teach the other kids about the nature of competition- there's always gonna be someone better than you, sometimes ALOT better as in this case, and the solution shouldn't be to give up, quit, or even worse, litigate. Give it your best shot, if you come up short, at least you got in there and tried.
Am I hopelessly old fashioned????

Fwiw, there's a kid on dh's little league team who throws 75 mph. He's 12, not 9, but I would hazard a guess that when he was this kid's age, he was probably throwing 40mph as well. These people need to get over themselves.

cameragirl21 replied: Let the kid play. In life we will all have to go up against people who intimidate us or are better than we are at something, doesn't mean they should be disqualified...perhaps people like that can inspire others to improve their game and really try their best.
to me, telling a kid he can't play because he's too good sends the wrong message and in all fairness, is the hallmark of the downfall of a productive society. I realize this is just one simple incident but how can anyone justify disqualifying someone because they're just much better than the others? There are no words to describe just how ridiculous that is.
As to why he didn't want to play for the other team, it really doesn't matter, he didn't and there was no reason why he can't stay on his team. If the other kids can't hack it it's not this boy's problem.

msoulz replied:
ITA!!

And I just posted the same story in the news section, sorry, didn't see this post before.

I have a nine year old boy who loves baseball. 9 year olds just want to play with their friends. This is probably why he did not want to change leagues or teams. He just wants to be with his buddies. He shouldn't be forced into another league. Just let the boy play. He will likely seek out more competition soon enough. Don't force him out.