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

[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*