Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Your Reactions?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Your Reactions?

    http://rss.nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/48...-other_sports/

    I've seen 1000s of comments on other sites. Almost unanimously people condemned this settlement. I actually found it grotesque that there was so little compassion for the boy's parents. The comments all steered toward villainizing them. I get that there's disdain for lawsuits that seem to unjustly toss blame around until it sticks somewhere, but for Pete's sake to make personal attacks against them? My son pitches. I've encouraged him. Our entire family has given him praise and showered him with approval. I fully understand that plays some role in why he pitches. I'm pretty sure that I'd never smile again if it were my kid this happened to. These parents are living their worst nightmare.

    There's plenty of information for the uninformed simpleton to jump to conclusions in this story, but I think there's likely some evidence that gives the case merit which isn't disclosed. Are there, or were there bats approved for LL play that met batted ball exit speed standards when brand new, but exceeded them with use? If so then to me that knowingly circumvents safety initiatives. Every time I hear about this, whether it be cheating on pitcher availability where pitch counts are in effect or ignoring signs of injury in favor of wins and meaningless statistical accomplishments, it sickens me. If this bat was one of those bats then I think there is merit to their case. If it's a case of it just being a "metal bat" and it out performs wood, then I first and foremost sympathize with the family. However, I think their case lacks merit.

    Any bat can and has caused serious injury due to balls hit harder than reaction time can handle. That's not the issue. If it were a case where safety rules were circumvented for profit, for meaningless performance increases, for fueling the insane parts of youth sports, then this kid is a victim. I almost feel like many of us share in the blame. How much have you valued your kid's performance? I'm guilty as sin. I've spent money on camps and instruction and top notch equipment. I've spent 1000s of hours practicing with my kids in hope that they compete favorably. I've been without question the target market for a hot bat.
    There are two kinds of losers.....Those that don't do what they are told, and those that do only what they are told.

  • #2
    "Little League reached an agreement with the major manufacturers in the early 1990s to limit metal bats' performance to that of the best wooden bats." I must have missed that memo.

    Comment


    • #3
      The bats were juiced and the pitchers were in danger. I've seen some unbelievable injuries to pitchers. The only reason it didn't happen more frequently was because the odds of the ball going directly at the pitcher's head or heart are relatively low. But it would happen: it could be predicted that serious injury would occur. It was like a hockey goalie playing without equipment.

      That everyone has gone to BBCORE is prima fascie evidence that the previous bats were dangerous. Everyone should just go to wood, it's that simple. That's the way the game was designed.
      Major Figure

      Comment


      • #4
        The game was designed to be played with wood. Aluminum/composites need to go. Simple as that.

        Comment


        • #5
          Golf was designed with wood shafts, tennis racquets were as well. Those games have not been hindered by those technological advances. Now, I don't like the super hot bats and think the bat rules to make the bats "more wood like" is a nice step, but I don't care if a bad is made with aluminimum or composites to make that happen.

          Comment


          • #6
            I would like to see everyone 10 years and older using wooden bats.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by PCC View Post
              I would like to see everyone 10 years and older using wooden bats.
              Especially with the composite wood bats. They last a long time unlike to old wood bats.

              Comment


              • #8
                After reading the article, I think the settlement is more of a charity than anything. I am not sure people realize how much money these companies make. We are talking $5 million per company to help support a disabled kid for life. A kid that became diabled while playing baseball. LL, Sports Authority, and Louisville Slugger.

                I am proud they stepped up to the table.

                Comment


                • #9
                  A couple of our pitchers wear the under armour heart guard pads..a little hotter in the summer but a minor discomfort considering the potential risk.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Heart guards are required in our league. What do other leagues do?
                    WAR EAGLE!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by pstein View Post
                      The game was designed to be played with wood. Aluminum/composites need to go. Simple as that.
                      It's not going to happen at the youth level. Also there's a shortage of ash which is the most affordable wood for bats. If baseball went all wood the cost of bats would skyrocket. And we know what happens to wood with unskilled hitters. I believe the reason we didn't break a lot of bats in LL years ago is with bats without a drop the better pitchers were striking out ten-plus per game. Now wood bats come with drops up to -7. They are very susceptible to breaking. They have very weak handles.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I'm going to address this only from the liability standpoint. The settlement in this case is another episode of the legal game "Who has the deepest pockets? Let's get 'em!" The named parties in the lawsuit know if they went to court what the jury decision would be from people not smart enough to get out of jury duty.

                        I can't figure out why LL is accountible given it wasn't a LL game. The leage chose to use LL approved bats. But the league doesn't have money to be sued over. Plus a lawsuit against the league would kill the league making the parents very unpopular in the communty. If the bat manufacturer made the bat to LL specs they shouldn't be accountible.

                        I see a situation which is solely the liability of the league (if there is liability) and the risk the parents took signing their son up to play baseball. By the way, the liability waivers parents sign before the season aren't worth the paper they're written on. My uncle, an attorney explained it to me several years ago when I required them for my travel team. I can't remember the legal reasoning.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by tg643 View Post
                          I'm going to address this only from the liability standpoint. The settlement in this case is another episode of the legal game "Who has the deepest pockets? Let's get 'em!" The named parties in the lawsuit know if they went to court what the jury decision would be from people not smart enough to get out of jury duty.
                          Stopped reading right there.

                          Some of us believe that jury duty is just one part of our civic duties for the privilege of living this country, to participate in a judicial system that allows us to be "judged by our peers", and not by some government official and/or tribunal.

                          You're a great example of the kinds of attitudes that do nothing but hurt this nation. Don't like jury duty? Maybe you're living in the wrong country....don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way OUT!
                          In memory of "Catchingcoach" - Dave Weaver: February 28, 1955 - June 17, 2011

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by mudvnine View Post
                            Stopped reading right there.

                            Some of us believe that jury duty is just one part of our civic duties for the privilege of living this country, to participate in a judicial system that allows us to be "judged by our peers", and not by some government official and/or tribunal.

                            You're a great example of the kinds of attitudes that do nothing but hurt this nation. Don't like jury duty? Maybe you're living in the wrong country....don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way OUT!
                            I'm self employed. If I get stuck in a month of jury duty that's an entire month I'm unemployed. Even though it's a requirement to appear for jury duty I'm always one of the first dismissed from serving by 10am. I show up in a suit wearing glasses carrying a briefcase. I look intelligent and successful. The lawyer with the right to exclude potential jurors tosses me first. That is if I don't get tossed by responding yes to, "Do you or anyone in your family work in law enforcement or the legal system?" My uncle, two cousins and my daughter (headed for law school) are all in law firms. Defense lawyers don't want intelligent jurors. They want gullible jurors. What our country's legal system needs is professional jurors.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by tg643 View Post
                              I'm self employed. If I get stuck in a month of jury duty that's an entire month I'm unemployed. Even though it's a requirement to appear for jury duty I'm always one of the first dismissed from serving by 10am. I show up in a suit wearing glasses carrying a briefcase. I look intelligent and successful. The lawyer with the right to exclude potential jurors tosses me first.
                              But this somehow makes you "smarter" than the jurors that do serve, simply because you "look", intelligent and successful?

                              Sounds to me that you're simply trying to cheat at a game, in order to achieve what you believe to be a "win" in your mind....ill begotten or not.

                              What's even more surprising, is that you have to go through all the shenanigans, being self-employed and serving on a jury would be detrimental to your business.

                              Most courts would excuse such potential jurors (without them even having to appear (in "costume"), simply be stating such when returning their jury summons....if the "self-employed" person indeed had no one else able to continue running the business in his absence.

                              BTW, both lawyers have the "right to exclude potential jurors", not just the defense attorney.

                              That is if I don't get tossed by responding yes to, "Do you or anyone in your family work in law enforcement or the legal system?"
                              Courts in CA are now making law enforcement officers serve. Had a judge in jury selection ask a potential juror who requested to be excused, becasue he was a police officer, if he was, "fair, unbiased, and non judgmental in the course of his duties".....when the police officer answered "yes", the judge then asked him, "Well, will you be able to be the same in the jury box, and if not, why not?".

                              The officer looked stunned and affirmed that he would be able to, the judge said, "Thank you, you're not excused".....and then went on to explain to the rest of the remaining panel, "If this officer has stated that he can serve dutifully on a jury, than those of you that simply "know" or are "friends" with one, should be able to also if you were thinking anything different."

                              My uncle, two cousins and my daughter (headed for law school) are all in law firms. Defense lawyers don't want intelligent jurors. They want gullible jurors.
                              So, since they are allowed to only excuse a limited number of potential jurors, how do they know that the jurors that they are excusing, are more "intelligent" than the ones remaining who they've yet to question?

                              It can't be the "costumes" they're wearing in the box now could it? I think we all know how detrimental that could be for them.

                              What our country's legal system needs is professional jurors.
                              Oh yippee, more "employees" on our government payrolls.

                              I'm not saying that all jury decisions are correct (at least in my eyes), however, I do believe in the system that this country was founded on, and will always support, "We the people", over governmental "employees" making our judicial decisions.

                              Hell, I even think our paid Supreme Court Justices have way over stepped their assigned duties and given responsibilities, not sure how more paid "justices" would supposedly make things any better....but that's for another thread.
                              Last edited by mudvnine; 08-25-2012, 11:32 AM.
                              In memory of "Catchingcoach" - Dave Weaver: February 28, 1955 - June 17, 2011

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X