Overheard at yesterday's ball game

[pat]

Yesterday was J's first game in the "major leagues" -- the highest division in his age group in our local Little League. They are a lot stricter enforcing the rules at this level, one of them being that players are forbidden to wear any jewelry except religious items.

One boy had what looked like a braided cloth ring around his neck. It did not have a religious medal on it, so the umpire ordered it off. I don't know why the boy was wearing it, but it was clearly something that could not be simply slipped off -- it was smaller than his head. It could not be removed without destroying it. The child was adamant that he was not going to remove it.

After much argument -- with the coach supporting his player -- the umpire let it go. One parent behind me remarked they should simply cut the thing off and then said (and I am not making this up) "They have to teach the kids to obey the rules. It's a matter of professionalism."

I was so stunned at this comment that I was unable to speak. I realize -- or at least hope -- that the woman may not have thought about exactly what she said, but still....

Sheesh. Those Little League scandals that crop up now and then don't seem so unbelievable.

Comments

[fifthconundrum.livejournal.com]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I think she has a point. If the child wasn't wearing it for health or religious reasons, he should have either removed it or sat out the game. Making an exception for one child means you must make an exception for all. Furthermore, if he learns in Little League that he can have the rules bent to his whims, he will expect the same in high school and college and in the professional world.

[rosefox]

*shrug* I don't see what's wrong with thinking that rules can and should be challenged if they don't serve the need that they were meant to serve.

[patgreene.livejournal.com]

I might agree with your point except that there was clearly more than met the eye here. The coach supported the player in this, which if it had been a simple matter of a rebellious child he would not have done. The umpire's position was that unless there was a cross or some other explicitly religious medallion on the material, it was jewelry. I could not hear the whole debate, but picked up that the item had some specific meaning for the child. It is quite possible that it was a memorial item of some sort, which to my mind makes it fall into the "religious" area. The fact that the child had been wearing it nonstop long enough for his head to grow big enough that the band would not fit over it indicates to me that it meant something.

But what got me most was the "professionalism" comment. These are ten, eleven and twelve year old boys. If you want to enforce the rules, do so, but to imagine for a minute that something more is at stake here than a simple children's game is to have in my mind a really screwed up perspective.

[patgreene.livejournal.com]

The "you" in the above comment was a generic "you".

[geekchick]

What bugged me about it -- in addition to the woman advocating cutting off the kid's necklace after he'd already said he did not want that done, which really bothered me -- was someone applying the word "professionalism" to Little League, which in theory (and apparently in a lot of cases it's only in theory these days) is supposed to be about having fun.

[dawnd.livejournal.com]

1) Not all "religious" items LOOK religious. A "witch's cord" is usually braided cloth or rope, and often has no "religious" symbol on it at all, for example.

2) He COULDN'T remove it, not without destroying it. As someone else downthread pointed out, that means he had to have been wearing it non-stop for YEARS (since I don't think it's possible to braid such a thing in place around someone's neck). To cut something off of him in "service" to the RULES is making a travesty of the reasons for those rules in the first place. I would consider it a violent act against him, unless it were to save his life.

3) As Rose mentions downthread, it should ALWAYS be possible for rules to be re-evaluated and for exceptions to be made when the rules are not serving the reasons for which they were created. In this case, I'm relatively certain that the main REASON for the rule is *safety*--rings and necklaces, for example, can get caught and injure the player or other players. Without some very good reason why they can't be removed, they SHOULD be removed. This particular item (as described) would be unlikely in the extreme to injure another player. Only in some very unusual circumstance could it be used to injure him. Personally, I'd think that warranted an exception for that reason if no other.

4) Furthermore, if he learns in Little League that he can have the rules bent to his whims, he will expect the same in high school and college and in the professional world.

[sarcasm]God/dess forbid that we should treat our children--or ourselves--as individuals.[/sarcasm] I certainly HOPE that he learns in Little League, and continues to experience throughout his life, that people have individual needs, and that not all rules must apply equally to all people all the time. Otherwise I'm afraid of the world that will result, where people are thrown in jail for the most minor infractions of laws that shouldn't exist, and where people can get away with atrocities because they were "following the rules." *shudder* It has happened before, and it will happen again. But there is NO REASON it should happen in LITTLE LEAGUE.

[hobbitbabe.livejournal.com]

As someone else downthread pointed out, that means he had to have been wearing it non-stop for YEARS (since I don't think it's possible to braid such a thing in place around someone's neck).

I completely agree with your viewpoint (no surprise), but disagree with the comment in brackets. Our kids both wear rope bracelets which were woven around their wrists by fellow sailors, and which they can't remove without cutting or unravelling. One of them also wears one around an ankle. I'm certain that similar techniques can be used to weave a necklet. I can't remember the name of the weaving/braiding technique though.

Our parental intervention in this has been limited to reminding them how to get the bracelets made large enough for possible water-retention and body growth, encouraging them to wash and dry the bracelets and covered areas of skin and to monitor the smell, and brainstorming about choices they may need to make in the future between the bracelets and certain jobs, sports, or fashions.

I am enlightened

[dawnd.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the context. I had seen such a bracelet, but I still wasn't sure it was possible to do around someone's *neck* such that it was small enough not to go around the head. Thanks for letting me know that the technique does exist!

[patgreene.livejournal.com]

4) Furthermore, if he learns in Little League that he can have the rules bent to his whims, he will expect the same in high school and college and in the professional world.
[sarcasm]God/dess forbid that we should treat our children--or ourselves--as individuals.[/sarcasm]

I don't think any of us would argue that kids are not and should not be treated as individuals. I did not read fifthconundrum as advocating that. Following the rules is a valuable lesson -- and some sports figures have come to believe in recent years that the rules which govern the rest of society don't apply to them, and have been allowed to get away with thinking that.

more thoughts and clarifications

[dawnd.livejournal.com]

It was the bit about "bending the rules to suit his whims" that put my back up. I agree that there are plenty of folks (especially big name sports figures) who seem to think that the rules DON'T ever apply to them, much to the detriment of all. But we do indeed need to have room for negotiation. Without that room for negotiation, we risk a "slippery slope" that leads to rigid conservatism, or worse yet, totalitarianism. Many injustices have been done because the person following the rules followed them slavishly. Our history is full of them.

I definitely would have felt differently if you had described this kid as *unilaterally* maintaining his position over something that COULD be easily removed (essentially throwing a tantrum because he felt he alone should not have to follow this rule). But as you said, his COACH was behind him, and that seems good enough to me.

It's worth noting that the "religious symbols" bit is ITSELF an "exception" to that particular rule ("no jewelry"). (And frankly, not a very good one, IF the only reason for it is safety (not necessarily the case, BTW)--after all, having a cross on a necklace doesn't make it any LESS dangerous). I wonder how they would have treated it if it had had a pentagram depending from it? Or possibly some Islamic symbol? I would hope that these would also "count," but I'm betting that many (though not all) making those decisions would "discount" those as not being "acceptable religious symbols." We really have a very strong Judeo-Christian bias on that in this country.

Either way, I'm glad he was allowed to play. I certainly hope there is some discussion among the ranks about this issue, and that they figure out a fair and equitable way to deal with such questions in the future. For instance, if there could be a procedure by which to grant an exception to the rule, that involved contacting someone(s) in writing in advance of the game. Then, the kid has to carry his "waiver" with him, or he can't play. This would apply to everyone equally, including those wanting to wear religious medals, etc. Not to say that there couldn't be problems with such a system, too (certainly there could if the person who did the decision-making were arbitrary), but at least then there wouldn't be a fight about it ON THE FIELD, causing yet more tension for a whole host of already high-strung parents and kids.

Re: more thoughts and clarifications

[patgreene.livejournal.com]

It was the bit about "bending the rules to suit his whims" that put my back up.

I understand your reaction, but I just think that sarcasm tends to chill discussion rather than enable it. (I'm guilty of this myself, sometimes, I admit.)

Re: more thoughts and clarifications

[dawnd.livejournal.com]

Well, I did LABEL it as sarcastic anyway! I CAN learn from the examples of others on occasion. *wry smile*