Tough decision...what would you have done?

[default]

Joe,

Your points are well taken

I would only suggest that the definition of discrimination taken out of the context of this discussion would be unfair treatment of a person on the basis of prejudice which caused some level of harm.

I would also say that most of your examples cause no harm or negetive effect on the other party. (Althogh I am sure that a few men out there feel harmed not to be given the opportunity to date

Good points, but I don't think OnTheBucket was prejudiced as we think of the term meaning an unfavorable attitude toward someone. I think his safety concerns were valid, as it's only common sense to conclude that a pitcher with one hand or arm is much more likely to be in danger than a pitcher with two. People who are handicapped by definition have some sort of a handicap. OnTheBucket simply recognized that fact and shouldn't be lambasted as some sort of bigot that a few on here seem to want to do.

The difference betwen this situation and a girl simply playing way in at 3B without a mask is that any of us who have been in the game for even one year have had time to see and think about corners playing close without a mask and aren't surprised when we see it. When we're confronted with a situation we've never seen like OnTheBucket, it might strike us as unreasonably dangerous and we now have to make a decision that we weren't anticipating.

 

[default]

Good points, but I don't think OnTheBucket was prejudiced as we think of the term meaning an unfavorable attitude toward someone. I think his safety concerns were valid, as it's only common sense to conclude that a pitcher with one hand or arm is much more likely to be in danger than a pitcher with two. People who are handicapped by definition have some sort of a handicap. OnTheBucket simply recognized that fact and shouldn't be lambasted as some sort of bigot that a few on here seem to want to do.

The difference betwen this situation and a girl simply playing way in at 3B without a mask is that any of us who have been in the game for even one year have had time to see and think about corners playing close without a mask and aren't surprised when we see it. When we're confronted with a situation we've never seen like OnTheBucket, it might strike us as unreasonably dangerous and we now have to make a decision that we weren't anticipating.

Like a disabled person. You seem to be trying to justify treating a disabled person differently. You don't say there is a difference in the danger facing a one armed pitcher verses a two arm corner playing close. We see a lot of "normal" girls face the danger and we have become accepting of it but when a disabled person faces the same level of danger we should treat them differently. Not the definition of discrimination?

Don't see where anyone called him a bigot. We are providing the onions HE SOLICITED! He was just trying to do the right thing and asked opinions to see if what he did was right. You have to commend someone like that.

 

[default]

So let me get this straight - if a blind girl entered the game at third base with no face mask, as long as the coach and parent were fine with that, there is no problem, right? She has a RIGHT to play, right? It would be an act of discrimination and a violation of federal law to remove her for her own safety, right?? Ok. Just so we are clear.

 

[default]

So let me get this straight - if a blind girl entered the game at third base with no face mask, as long as the coach and parent were fine with that, there is no problem, right? She has a RIGHT to play, right? It would be an act of discrimination and a violation of federal law to remove her for her own safety, right?? Ok. Just so we are clear.

That is an interesting side to see it from. Let her play, you can't discriminate like that!! Even if you are doing it for the right reason, you are still discriminating! Not how I see it, but that is the way the world is now. What is the definition of disabled or handicapped anyway? What about this crazy thought? You have a league of disabled players or handicapped players,however there is a stud hitter, pitcher that is not handicapped that wants to play in that league. When the stud is up to bat, everyone knows she is about to crush the ball right down the third basemans throat, (by the way, she has no mask on either) ,The pitcher(with no mask) has a disabled arm and is not able to throw fast yet or get her glove on quickly , she also is in serious danger. Do we all just watch it happen, or does someone with common sense step in and stop what is about to happen? Come on everyone, it is called COMMON SENSE! I don't know of anyone on here that wants someone to get seriously injured. It is not discrimination, it is more like caring , and love for the girls.

 

[default]

So let me get this straight - if a blind girl entered the game at third base with no face mask, as long as the coach and parent were fine with that, there is no problem, right? She has a RIGHT to play, right? It would be an act of discrimination and a violation of federal law to remove her for her own safety, right?? Ok. Just so we are clear.

Seriously??

 

[default]

As a mom and a coach, the last thing you ever want to do is put a child in the situation where they could possibly sustain some life altering injury. I am one of those parents that are totally for the Mask. If the mask makes my kid that much less likely to catch a ball and keep her teeth, so be it. I've been ridiculed for allowing my daughter to continue to wear the mask. "Teach her how to field!" So I've been told.

But.......I totally respect the decision of the parents and player to not wear one. It might scare you and me more than anything. My daughter has played against one limbed first base women and completely deaf pitchers. She is probably going to have to have a false tooth at some point in her life due to grounders I was hitting to her as an 8 year old. Some people handle poisonous snakes for a living. Not something I would do, but if you are trained, and seriously know the risks, have at it. These supposed disabled girls are probably more abled than some of the ones most of us put out on the field. They are not disabled, just differently abled.

BRAVO!!!

 

[default]

Seriously??

Yes, seriously. If you have a counter argument, go ahead and make it.

 

[default]

Yes, seriously. If you have a counter argument, go ahead and make it.

If you think the argument you just made was a serious one, be proud.

 

[default]

Also, you are allowing the umpire to make a judgement on who has ability, who should be playing, and who should not. If it comes down to a situation where it could be child abuse b/c the kid has no business trying to catch a line drive, then it should be addressed. As a coach and player, we bunt against defenses that can't handle our hits, we even let the opposing coach know when they should move back. Hitters that can place the ball are told to do so differently.

 

[default]

As a mom and a coach, the last thing you ever want to do is put a child in the situation where they could possibly sustain some life altering injury. I am one of those parents that are totally for the Mask. If the mask makes my kid that much less likely to catch a ball and keep her teeth, so be it. I've been ridiculed for allowing my daughter to continue to wear the mask. "Teach her how to field!" So I've been told.

But.......I totally respect the decision of the parents and player to not wear one. It might scare you and me more than anything. My daughter has played against one limbed first base women and completely deaf pitchers. She is probably going to have to have a false tooth at some point in her life due to grounders I was hitting to her as an 8 year old. Some people handle poisonous snakes for a living. Not something I would do, but if you are trained, and seriously know the risks, have at it. These supposed disabled girls are probably more abled than some of the ones most of us put out on the field. They are not disabled, just differently abled.

BRAVO!!!

All the girl had to do was put a mask on and everything would have been fine. He cared about her, not discriminated against her. JMHO

 

[default]

If you think the argument you just made was a serious one, be proud.

Thanks. I do. It was actually a devastating argument that has left you incapable of an intellectual response. As was explained by the O.P., once the girl pitched the ball, she looked down, fumbling for the glove. For all practical purposes, she was blind and totally unable to defend herself. SOMEONE had to step up. You're the type who would sit back and do nothing. If you think that's a morally tenable position, be proud.

 

[default]

So let me get this straight - if a blind girl entered the game at third base with no face mask, as long as the coach and parent were fine with that, there is no problem, right? She has a RIGHT to play, right? It would be an act of discrimination and a violation of federal law to remove her for her own safety, right?? Ok. Just so we are clear.

Reasonable accommodations must be made, like allowing a child with a heart condition to wear a catchers chest protector in the field to safely compete. So in your example reasonable accommodations could not be made. You would have to completely change the game and equipment.

In this case the child is not in significantly more danger then your avg rec ball pitcher. A ball hit at her head she's going to duck, if it's to quick for her to duck she would have the self protect instincts to get both hands up in a Gaurd position. Remember, she has 2 hands but she can't use it to pitch or catch. If its so hard she couldn't duck or get her hands up to block it would be irrelevant if she had a mitt on. Hence the reason for masks, if all it took was 2 hands to prevent getting hit in the face we wouldn't see so many players wearing them.

 

[default]

I think the point 29dad was making was that if you go by the principle that disabled persons should not be treated any differently, then you have to accept the blind third baseman with no face mask. After all, we certainly can't discriminate. Why do they have that game of baseball or softball for the blind, where the ball makes a noise? Is that bigotry against the blind, or is that a reasonable and welcome accommodation that allows blind people to play ball?

At some point, one's handicap makes it dangerous to do certain things. This is not bigotry, it's just a fact. I don't understand why many who purport to advocate for the handicapped want to insist that society pretend that handicaps don't force physical limitations, when by definition this is exactly what they do. Why not acknowledge the handicap presents limitations and work to make reasonable accommodations for the handicapped?

 

[default]

I didn't realize that this would follow under rule 10 because there isn't a specific rule saying it is legal for a player to pitch if she only has use of 1 hand. Silly me, I never knew.
I guess, even if there was a specific rule saying that it is legal for a player to pitch if she only has use of 1 hand the umpire could invoke rule 10, saying she not allowed be he feels it is unsafe. So either way it doesn't matter. We need to let this young lady know it is not up to her if she pitches, it is up to each individual umpire.

That's not the way Rule 10 works. It gives the umpire the ability to rule on points NOT covered by the rule book.

Obviously, if there was a rule that said "the pitcher must have at least one functional hand", then this point WOULD be covered by the rule book.

Rule 10 is not a license for the umpire to make up any ruling he can dream of. It would be impossible for any one book (a finite resource) to cover every possible scenario that might pop up on a ball field (an infinite number of possibilities). Rule 10 only applies when something happens that's not covered by rule.

 

[default]

Bretman; Rule 10, Is the rule that allows the umpire to be infallible and to run a softball game the way the Pope runs the Catholic Church. It has been good for the game although irritating when invoked.

 

[default]

I think the point 29dad was making was that if you go by the principle that disabled persons should not be treated any differently, then you have to accept the blind third baseman with no face mask. After all, we certainly can't discriminate. Why do they have that game of baseball or softball for the blind, where the ball makes a noise? Is that bigotry against the blind, or is that a reasonable and welcome accommodation that allows blind people to play ball?

At some point, one's handicap makes it dangerous to do certain things. This is not bigotry, it's just a fact. I don't understand why many who purport to advocate for the handicapped want to insist that society pretend that handicaps don't force physical limitations, when by definition this is exactly what they do. Why not acknowledge the handicap presents limitations and work to make reasonable accommodations for the handicapped?

We are talking realistically and bringing in a situation of a blind girl playing is beyond goofy. Want to bring up a quadriplegic next. Are we children or adults debating here?

Now a girl with one arm can realistically happen and it has but you all avoid answering this question:

A. Is the girl who is playing third at around 20-25 yards and creeping in MORE - LESS - EQUAL able to defend herself against a hard line drive than the pitcher at 40 feet?? Joe what is professional opinion, which one can defend themselves better?

Now the girl in question, again shouldn't be playing with-out a mask but should she be banned when girls without disabilities get in more dangerous situations and are not? How are her reflexes? Doubt the ump who knew her for 5-10 minutes would know.

Surprised you are bashing the handicapped. What "special treatment" did she ask for? None, she just wanted to play like everyone else with the same set of rules. No one is pretending handicaps don't force physical limitations. She has one less arm to defend herself so she IS at more risk than a girl with two arms. How much more depends on her reflexes. The handicap is acknowledged but why should she be singled out when others get in equal or more dangerous situations and are allowed to play?

UNLESS you want put in print that the girl playing in close at third with her arms hanging down by the ground ready to field a bunt can do better at defending herself against that line drive than you are discriminating. UNLESS you want to say you know that the girl in question doesn't have the reflexes to do better than another girl with two arms but very slow reflexes than you may be a redneck. ha jk discriminating.

How many two armed pitchers get hit in the face every year? Why were they allowed to pitch? How many corners get hit in the face every year?

And I REPEAT I think this girls parents are ignorant to let her pitch without a mask but I think that about every mask-less pitcher's parents. This isn't a debate about that, it's about whether the ump should be the one deciding if a girl playing with-in the rules should be able to play with a handicap based on their limited knowledge of the players ability. At some point maybe (the quadriplegic), but at this point?? Shouldn't the decision be the parents and coaches? And if the decision is the ump's shouldn't it be carried over to the corners? Ump keep them from playing too close.

 

[default]

I think the point 29dad was making was that if you go by the principle that disabled persons should not be treated any differently, then you have to accept the blind third baseman with no face mask. After all, we certainly can't discriminate. Why do they have that game of baseball or softball for the blind, where the ball makes a noise? Is that bigotry against the blind, or is that a reasonable and welcome accommodation that allows blind people to play ball?

At some point, one's handicap makes it dangerous to do certain things. This is not bigotry, it's just a fact. I don't understand why many who purport to advocate for the handicapped want to insist that society pretend that handicaps don't force physical limitations, when by definition this is exactly what they do. Why not acknowledge the handicap presents limitations and work to make reasonable accommodations for the handicapped?

That's why beeper ball and wheelchair basketball exsist. You can't make reasonable expectations to those games themselves to allow them to participate. If a youth league had a rule all players must have matching jerseys but one kid was exceptionally large or small and their jersey was slightly different due to their size not letting them play would be descrimination. Reasonable accomandations could be made.

I think I've actually seen this kid onthebucket is referring to play and I've seen her at travel tryouts. She might even be playing travel ball, she's not some helpless kid where rules have to be changed to the game itself to allow her to participate. By my count at the very least 4 other adults with direct knowledge of the situation and 1st hand knowledge of this kids abilities have said she can pitch, vs 1 guy who wasn't comfortable with her pitching without a mask on. So I think a few things were atleast considered by the other adults: her abilities and the leagues level. Or perhaps, she is in serious danger and onthebucket was the only one with the courage to say something. It's plausible to think Mom is your typical pitchers mom, coach doesn't want to deal with her, the league doesn't want to deal with her and the other ump didn't want to deal with her. As pointed out she could've just put a mask on and pitch, but she could've in her mind been making a statement to everybody else out there.

It's interesting, I still think the ump over stepped his authority and she should've been allowed to pitch. To me it seems like she was discriminated against. It kind of seems like a case of an over zealous ump, the kind of ump that's giving the players "tips" during the game because in his mind has more experience then everybody else out on the field. That doesn't make him a bad guy, just made a bad decision.

 

[default]

That's why beeper ball and wheelchair basketball exsist. You can't make reasonable expectations to those games themselves to allow them to participate. If a youth league had a rule all players must have matching jerseys but one kid was exceptionally large or small and their jersey was slightly different due to their size not letting them play would be descrimination. Reasonable accomandations could be made.

I think I've actually seen this kid onthebucket is referring to play and I've seen her at travel tryouts. She might even be playing travel ball, she's not some helpless kid where rules have to be changed to the game itself to allow her to participate. By my count at the very least 4 other adults with direct knowledge of the situation and 1st hand knowledge of this kids abilities have said she can pitch, vs 1 guy who wasn't comfortable with her pitching without a mask on. So I think a few things were atleast considered by the other adults: her abilities and the leagues level. Or perhaps, she is in serious danger and onthebucket was the only one with the courage to say something. It's plausible to think Mom is your typical pitchers mom, coach doesn't want to deal with her, the league doesn't want to deal with her and the other ump didn't want to deal with her. As pointed out she could've just put a mask on and pitch, but she could've in her mind been making a statement to everybody else out there.

It's interesting, I still think the ump over stepped his authority and she should've been allowed to pitch. To me it seems like she was discriminated against. It kind of seems like a case of an over zealous ump, the kind of ump that's giving the players "tips" during the game because in his mind has more experience then everybody else out on the field. That doesn't make him a bad guy, just made a bad decision.

I've tried to refrain from some of the things that have been insinuated about me. This time I need to reply. Uber, I have also seen the young lady you are referring to. This is NOT the same girl. I actually coached against the girl you are talking about two or three years ago I have to admit, I didn't even realize until the third inning that she had only one arm. She didn't pitch that day but played outfield and, if memory serves, first base. She also smacked the ball through the infield at least twice. Nice player for sure. I've heard rumors that she is playing travel ball somewhere in the area.

Second, your last comment couldn't be any more off base. I've tried my best to describe the situation, my observations, and the basis for my decision. I posted this topic, knowing full well that I was putting a bulls-eye on my chest. I am neither proud, nor ashamed of the decision that was made. Obviously, this was something that happened months ago, but it is still something I wonder about and I thought I'd see what other knowledgeable softball people thought. We learn from all the positive and negative things that occur in life if we accept the feedback and critique with an open mind. With each response, I am evaluating and learning. If I were truly an "overzealous" umpire, I wouldn't have ever posted this topic because obviously my decision would have been "right". I am trying to get better.

I am glad I posted this topic if for no other reason than it has given everyone a chance to look at things in many different ways. Some of you have said I made the right call, others disagree. Another has said I "failed miserably". Somewhere in between may lie the truth.

 

[default]

That's not the way Rule 10 works. It gives the umpire the ability to rule on points NOT covered by the rule book.

Obviously, if there was a rule that said "the pitcher must have at least one functional hand", then this point WOULD be covered by the rule book.

Rule 10 is not a license for the umpire to make up any ruling he can dream of. It would be impossible for anyone book (a finite resource) to cover every possible scenario that might pop up on a ball field (an infinite number of possibilities). Rule 10 only applies when something happens that's not covered by rule.

You are saying that this decision was within the umpires discretion based on rule 10 because there is no rule stating that a pitcher must have at least 1 functional hand. So then you are also saying it is no longer the decision of the parent and coach if she pitches it is up to each individual umpire.

 

[default]

I've tried to refrain from some of the things that have been insinuated about me. This time I need to reply. Uber, I have also seen the young lady you are referring to. This is NOT the same girl. I actually coached against the girl you are talking about two or three years ago I have to admit, I didn't even realize until the third inning that she had only one arm. She didn't pitch that day but played outfield and, if memory serves, first base. She also smacked the ball through the infield at least twice. Nice player for sure. I've heard rumors that she is playing travel ball somewhere in the area.

Second, your last comment couldn't be any more off base. I've tried my best to describe the situation, my observations, and the basis for my decision. I posted this topic, knowing full well that I was putting a bulls-eye on my chest. I am neither proud, nor ashamed of the decision that was made. Obviously, this was something that happened months ago, but it is still something I wonder about and I thought I'd see what other knowledgeable softball people thought. We learn from all the positive and negative things that occur in life if we accept the feedback and critique with an open mind. With each response, I am evaluating and learning. If I were truly an "overzealous" umpire, I wouldn't have ever posted this topic because obviously my decision would have been "right". I am trying to get better.

I am glad I posted this topic if for no other reason than it has given everyone a chance to look at things in many different ways. Some of you have said I made the right call, others disagree. Another has said I "failed miserably". Somewhere in between may lie the truth.

Was it off base?

I'm reading, No other umpires had expressed concerned, she had pitched previously this year and that brought the mother down from the stands who was not pleased with our ruling.

You went over to express concern, you were told she had pitched previously and no other umpires expressed concern. You never said "I told her, the coach and her mom that if she wore a mask she could pitch", you go on to say "it was obvious she could not protect herself from a line shot up the middle"

So whats the deal? Did you say she could pitch if she wore a mask, or did you say its obvious she cant protect herself from a line drive up the middle?

The league said you had no authority to stop her if coach and mom agreed to put her in the circle. That doesnt sound like an overzealous ump?