Rick Reilly raises ethical dillema in youth sports

Dude, the coaches letting him bat sends the EXACT message you're saying everyone else is sending him. They were telling him, "Kid, we think you suck because you had cancer, so we're gonna let you bat." It's not like the coaches made some gallant effort to try to let him succeed. You make them sound like heroes for letting him bat. If he had come up to bat, I'd say pitch to him like you would anyone else. But the coaches who walked to get to him MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE are telling this kid they thought he couldn't hack it, so your argument holds no weight.

 

I just said the coaches assumed he would fail, as did the people who think he shouldn't have been put in that position.

What's different about the mind-set of those coaches and this kids' surrogate protectors? Nothing. They both assumed he would fail.

And there's probably a young kid making the final out and crying every night in every town in America. But when you fall, you get up, dust yourself off and try again. The kid in question obviously understands that. Hard to fathom why so many others don't.

 

What's the difference in the mindset? Yes, the assumption of failure is being made by everyone. But it's also a reality. Can you honestly say you wouldn't think a kid with a shunt sticking out his head would be an out?

The difference isn't the assumption, which everyone would make, but what you do when you make the assumption. These guys took advantage of the kid's condition. Those of us who say the star should've have been walked say you don't take advantage of a sick kid's illness. THAT's the difference in the mindset. And that difference is far from "nothing."

 

And how can you say the kid understands that? Maybe he thinks the coaches are dirtbags and he wants to get better to show them up next time. Maybe he's just saying what his parents said to him. You can't assume to know what the kid thinks. You simply take his saying he wants to be a better batter as affirmation of your own belief, quite a jump really.

 

Here's the question for little league baseball coach pallister
Game on the line, two outs and a base open.
The other team's best hitter is up and on deck is the team's worst hitter. Because is you have identified the studs, that means you also know the duds. And lets say that the second kid isn't physically strong enough to get the bat around, but in this league everyone plays and it is his turn.
Do you walk the first batter to get to the other?
Or do you take your chances with the first batter?

 

I don't have a problem with it, and this is why -

- The coaches didn't do anything underhanded. Yes, an intentional walk is fairly rare in this age group. However, it's a championship game, and 9/10 year old are definitely old enough to want to win and realize the strategy that goes into that. My half-brother is 10, loves baseball and can figure that out. In fact, kids that age are starting to develop the teenage sense of injustice. If they felt the coaches hung them out to dry, that will stick and might drive them from the team, maybe from the sport.
- It was a championship game that meant a lot to the kids on both sides. If it were a meaningless game early in the season, there's no reason to hang the kid out to dry like that. However, intentionally catering to the kid with cancer in a game with championship repercussions is different.People say they'll forget in three months, but I remember quite distinctly how much I hated losing with my U-10 soccer team. This age is when kids start playing the game to win at least some of the time
- It doesn't equate to the kid with Downs syndrome who was allowed to score a touchdown because it wasn't a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the kid. If his health holds, he'll get back on the field and get another shot. Hell, he's the one with the best perspective on this.

Here's a hypothetical. Same scenario is in play, except instead just walking the stud, the coach orders the pitcher to walk Romney as well. Now everyone's up in arms because "You didn't give him a chance to be the hero, it might be his one shot."

And how does anyone know the coaches of Romney's team didn't put him there simply to "force" the other team to pitch to the stud? It seems totally underhanded, but I wouldn't past some of the youth sports coaches I've played for.

Bottom line is, the coaches of the winning team were in a no-win situation. They were going to be the

Romney has the best handle on it. Go work on his hitting so come next season, he'll be the player other teams don't want to face.

 

I just don't see that happening. I think everyone would be wondering why you walked the bases loaded. Then the coach would be an idiot, not a jerk.

 

So, just to be clear, there are those of you arguing that in a 9- and 10-year-old baseball league, a kid is fair game as long as he's on the team?

Did any of you actually play youth baseball? Or youth sports of any kind?

If you did, you would know that kids like this boy with cancer aren't uncommon. Growing up, we always had a kid on our team that was a little slow, had some form of physical disability or some other major strike against him. That these kids are allowed on these teams has less to do with them succeeding at the sport and more to do with that kid fitting in and the other kids learning to function around kids who are different. And that's perfectly fine. You know why? Because this is a 9- and 10-year-old league. Winning is secondary to the experience. Yes, score should be kept and records should be kept. But at the end of the day, the most important thing about these games are the lessons the kids learn from playing in them.

In this game, they all learned that it's OK to go after an easier target. It's OK, as long as you're within the rules, to take the easy way out of situations -- even the most meaningless of situations.

 

If I had been the coach I would have taken my chances against the first kid and if he gets out, then winner winner chicken dinner. If he gets on base, I pitch to the cancer kid and if he strikes out, I'm the first one to shake his hand.

Again, I don't think anyone is saying that the kid shouldn't have had a chance to hit. The point is that the other team didn't need to walk the first player to get to the cancer kid.

It just illustrates a win at all costs attitude, and the win, as Ricky pointed out, wasn't for the players, but for the coach. All he managed to do was win a 9-10 Little League championship and become the target of national scorn.

 

I'd probably walk the first batter. It's not cheating, and the object is to win.

If I'm the opposing coach, I'd do what I thought was necessary within the rules to help the team win. The opposing coach isn't supposed to worry about the other team's success. How would any coach's kids feel if he/she put an individual on the opposing team ahead of them.

In the grand scheme of things, it sucks that the kid struck out. But at least he got an opportunity that a lot of people would simply have denied him. And no, I'm not crediting the opposing coaches with that opportunity. Their motives were not altruistic, but they didn't have to be.

I'm just saying that trying and failing and trying and succeeding are part of life. Two sides of the same coin. Next time this kid gets an opportunity to do something special, maybe he does it. Maybe he doesn't. But you never know what you're capable of until you try. And no one will ever know what this kid is capable of unless they let him try.

Bottom line: This kid's probably mentally stronger than 95 percent of the U.S. population. Don't be so quick to think he needs to be protected at all times. Let him live. Let him learn. He might surprise you.

 

Cue the after school special music ... and everyone sing along
Shitty person, shitty person what's your function? Teaching kids that winning a little league championship is the most important thing and if that means picking on our weakest to ensure a win, so be it.

I never said he needed to be protected. What I said was that the coach shouldn't have walked the first batter.
Don't get things confused...And the object isn't to win at the little league level, the idea is to teach kids how to play the right way and the coach failed. What he wanted was a win, not the right thing to do.

 

All of this posturing is hypocritical bullshit.

Everyone here would take every advantage presented them. They'd screw over the shuntheaded kid every time and twice on Sunday.

It happens now, and it happens at 9.