| SOFTBALL TIPS |
|
|
|
| SITE STUFF |
|
|
|
|
ARCHIVES
|
| • |
June 26, 2005 |
| • |
July 03, 2005 |
| • |
July 10, 2005 |
| • |
July 17, 2005 |
| • |
July 24, 2005 |
| • |
July 31, 2005 |
| • |
August 07, 2005 |
| • |
August 14, 2005 |
| • |
August 21, 2005 |
| • |
August 28, 2005 |
| • |
September 11, 2005 |
| • |
October 02, 2005 |
| • |
October 09, 2005 |
| • |
October 23, 2005 |
| • |
October 30, 2005 |
| • |
November 06, 2005 |
| • |
November 13, 2005 |
| • |
December 04, 2005 |
| • |
December 18, 2005 |
| • |
December 25, 2005 |
| • |
January 08, 2006 |
| • |
January 15, 2006 |
| • |
January 29, 2006 |
| • |
February 05, 2006 |
| • |
February 12, 2006 |
| • |
February 19, 2006 |
| • |
February 26, 2006 |
| • |
March 05, 2006 |
| • |
March 12, 2006 |
| • |
March 19, 2006 |
| • |
March 26, 2006 |
| • |
April 02, 2006 |
| • |
April 09, 2006 |
| • |
April 16, 2006 |
| • |
April 23, 2006 |
| • |
April 30, 2006 |
| • |
May 07, 2006 |
| • |
May 14, 2006 |
| • |
May 21, 2006 |
| • |
May 28, 2006 |
| • |
June 04, 2006 |
| • |
June 11, 2006 |
| • |
June 18, 2006 |
| • |
June 25, 2006 |
| • |
July 09, 2006 |
| • |
July 16, 2006 |
| • |
July 23, 2006 |
| • |
July 30, 2006 |
| • |
August 13, 2006 |
| • |
August 20, 2006 |
| • |
September 03, 2006 |
| • |
September 10, 2006 |
| • |
September 17, 2006 |
| • |
September 24, 2006 |
| • |
October 01, 2006 |
| • |
October 08, 2006 |
| • |
October 15, 2006 |
| • |
October 22, 2006 |
| • |
November 12, 2006 |
| • |
November 26, 2006 |
| • |
December 31, 2006 |
| • |
January 14, 2007 |
| • |
January 21, 2007 |
| • |
January 28, 2007 |
| • |
February 04, 2007 |
| • |
February 11, 2007 |
| • |
February 18, 2007 |
| • |
February 25, 2007 |
| • |
March 04, 2007 |
| • |
March 11, 2007 |
| • |
March 18, 2007 |
| • |
April 01, 2007 |
| • |
April 08, 2007 |
| • |
April 15, 2007 |
| • |
April 22, 2007 |
| • |
April 29, 2007 |
| • |
May 06, 2007 |
| • |
May 13, 2007 |
| • |
May 20, 2007 |
| • |
May 27, 2007 |
| • |
June 03, 2007 |
| • |
June 10, 2007 |
| • |
June 17, 2007 |
| • |
June 24, 2007 |
| • |
July 01, 2007 |
| • |
July 22, 2007 |
| • |
July 29, 2007 |
| • |
August 12, 2007 |
| • |
August 19, 2007 |
| • |
September 02, 2007 |
| • |
September 16, 2007 |
| • |
September 30, 2007 |
| • |
October 07, 2007 |
| • |
October 14, 2007 |
| • |
October 21, 2007 |
| • |
November 04, 2007 |
| • |
November 18, 2007 |
| • |
November 25, 2007 |
| • |
December 02, 2007 |
| • |
December 09, 2007 |
| • |
December 16, 2007 |
| • |
January 13, 2008 |
| • |
February 17, 2008 |
| • |
February 24, 2008 |
| • |
March 02, 2008 |
| • |
March 09, 2008 |
| • |
March 30, 2008 |
| • |
April 06, 2008 |
| • |
April 13, 2008 |
| • |
April 20, 2008 |
| • |
April 27, 2008 |
| • |
May 04, 2008 |
| • |
May 11, 2008 |
| • |
May 18, 2008 |
| • |
May 25, 2008 |
| • |
June 01, 2008 |
| • |
June 15, 2008 |
| • |
June 22, 2008 |
| • |
June 29, 2008 |
| • |
July 06, 2008 |
| • |
July 13, 2008 |
| • |
July 20, 2008 |
| • |
August 03, 2008 |
| • |
August 10, 2008 |
| • |
August 17, 2008 |
| • |
August 24, 2008 |
| • |
August 31, 2008 |
| • |
September 07, 2008 |
| • |
September 14, 2008 |
| • |
September 21, 2008 |
| • |
September 28, 2008 |
| • |
October 05, 2008 |
| • |
October 12, 2008 |
| • |
October 19, 2008 |
| • |
October 26, 2008 |
| • |
November 02, 2008 |
| • |
November 09, 2008 |
| • |
November 16, 2008 |
| • |
November 30, 2008 |
| • |
December 07, 2008 |
| • |
December 21, 2008 |
| • |
December 28, 2008 |
| • |
February 15, 2009 |
| • |
February 22, 2009 |
| • |
April 12, 2009 |
| • |
April 19, 2009 |
| • |
April 26, 2009 |
| • |
May 03, 2009 |
| • |
May 10, 2009 |
| • |
May 17, 2009 |
| • |
May 24, 2009 |
| • |
May 31, 2009 |
| • |
June 07, 2009 |
| • |
June 14, 2009 |
| • |
June 21, 2009 |
| • |
July 05, 2009 |
| • |
July 12, 2009 |
| • |
July 19, 2009 |
| • |
August 02, 2009 |
| • |
August 30, 2009 |
| • |
September 06, 2009 |
| • |
September 20, 2009 |
| • |
October 04, 2009 |
| • |
October 11, 2009 |
| • |
October 18, 2009 |
| • |
November 08, 2009 |
| • |
November 15, 2009 |
| • |
November 22, 2009 |
| • |
November 29, 2009 |
| • |
December 27, 2009 |
| • |
January 03, 2010 |
| • |
January 10, 2010 |
| • |
January 17, 2010 |
| • |
January 24, 2010 |
| • |
January 31, 2010 |
| • |
March 14, 2010 |
| • |
March 21, 2010 |
| • |
March 28, 2010 |
| • |
April 04, 2010 |
| • |
April 18, 2010 |
| • |
April 25, 2010 |
|
|
| SOFTBALL LINKS |
|
|
|
Psychological Obstruction!
by Dave
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
A reader writes in to ask:
"I was wondering if you might share your thoughts/understanding on interference and obstruction. I am a coach and league official for 8U softball. I am trying to figure out how to deal with what is a minor problem, girls standing in the base path when not involved in a play.
For example, a runner is on second, another one on first, and SS is directly between the bases. The ball is hit to 2B who tries to make a play at third to force out the runner from second. SS never moves and runner has to go around her. Does that constitute obstruction?
Another example happens when runner is on second, SS in the baseline again, and ball is hit to 2B who makes a play at first. Even though there is no play at third, the runner has to run around SS get to the base. Is that obstruction?"
There are any number of scenarios we could draw up where a fielder stands in the basepaths and, thereby, theoretically forces the baserunner to go around her. The particular circumstances don't really matter. There are only three items that matter: whether the fielder does, in fact, obstruct the runner; whether the umpire calls it; and what we want to teach 8s, 10s, etc.
First of all, there is no such thing as an obstruction where the fielder's position causes a runner not to run because she wants to avoid confrontation. There is no such thing as psychological obstruction! Obstruction, the act (or inaction) by a defensive player which hinders, impedes, or prevents the opffensively player from doing hitting the pitvched ball or advancing between bases, must actually occur. This is probably a more important differentiation at 8U where a girl at second might not even go towards third because the SS is in the way. But if she goes, is forced to go around the SS and is put out before reaching third, at least theoretically, the umpire should call obstruction and award her the base.
The scenarios which the reader presented do constitute obstruction. Anytime a defensive player impedes an offensive one without making a tag on her (having posession of the ball), that would constitute obstruction. -; But just because something constitutes obstruction does not mean it will result in a call and even when it is called, there can be no need of enforcing it.
In order for an obstruction to be called, the baserunner must, in the opinion of the umpire, have been able to make it to the next base but for the obstruction. The umpire sees the obstruction; judges that if the runner were not obstructed, she would have been safe at the next base; calls delayed dead ball by holding out his fist; and, if the runner is put out before reaching that base, awards it to her, negates the putout.
If the runner is not put out, if she gets to the base where the umpire thought she would and is safe there, the call is not enforced since there is no need. In fact, the umpire will most likely not say another word about it. Say he/she puts out his hand in a fist and says "obstruction" but the girl gets to the base safely. He/she will put there hand down and never explain to anyone what it was he called.
More importantly, an obstruction call depends on the umpire seeing the obstruction to begin with. I don't think I have to tell you that obstructions sometimes occur without umpires witnessing them and go uncalled. Just like anythihng else in life, if it ain't called, it ain't an infraction.
Further, umpires cannot see what doesn't happen. So, if a runner is at second when a grounder is hit to 2B and she doesn't go because the SS is in the way, most likely no call will result. I think it is important to make young girls understand that a fielder standing in their way should never cause them to not run to the next base. That can be a difficult hurdle, particularly in rec ball. But we need to make them understand what obstruction is. They should be taught not to stand in basepaths and, if they are running the bases, to not stop merely because someone is in the way.
Very often at 10U, 12U and, yes, even at 14U we see players unintentionally blocking basepaths. Say a ball is drilled past the outfielders. Many times I have seen a third baseman carelessly watching the outfielders retrieving the ball while she is standing right near the bag. She isn't focused on her position yet because she is not in the play until the ball gets back closer to the infield. Runners trying to round third sometimes are forced to alter their paths. Actually, I've seen that at all age levels. That fairly frequently gets called but often yields no change to the play as the runner easily makes it to third and then home.
Another scenario which can frequently result in obstruction occurs when there is a runner on first, the 2B has positioned herself in the baseline and the runner attempts a steal of second without the 2B noticing. I see that all the time in 12U. In 14U, generally girls are more aware of the base stealer. And this almost never gets called.
I have also seen numerous kids intentionally obstruct baserunners. There is a local 14 year old travel first baseman who must have been schooled in how to be an aggressive defensive player. She frequently gets in the way of base runners when she does not have possession of the ball. She commits other deliberate aggressive acts too but we haven't got time for those today. In any event, girls mostly shy away from her blocking of the base and umpires seldom call her for obstruction. This has encouraged her to increase her tendency to obstruct.
I have seen other infielders, particularly 2Bs who appear to intentionally get in the way of baserunners. They too give off the appearance of having been schooled to play aggressively. And umpires also seldom call them for their deliberate actions either because they don't see them or because they don't feel the fielder is actually impeding the runner.
It is important to note that deliberate/intentional is not any part of the definition of obstruction. So it doesn't matter if a fielder is performing a deliberate act or not. But I mention deliberate obstruction, whether called or not because what this little piece is really about is what we teach players. And while, for example, whomever taught the first baseman to block the bag without the ball is probably pretty satisfied with the results, my sense is one day they may be forced to rethink that.
Almost every 8 will play 10U ball at some level. Almost every 10 will play 12U ball at some level. Almost every 12U travel player will play 14U and a good portion of those will play ball in high school, 16U travel, and perhaps beyond that. One of my main themes, in case you haven't noticed, is we should always give kids the tools they'll need at the next level. We don't really want to teach 10s only how to thrive in 10U ball. And teaching kids to do things like intentionally obstruct or failing to teach kids to get out of the way when they should can have some drastic consequences down the road.
Teach kids not to play 2B in the baseline. They should be behind it or in front of it. There's no real reason to be in it. We're talking about a couple feet either side of the direct line. The same is true for SS. For players who cover bags including all the infielders but probably outfielders as well, teach them where to stand, not where not to stand, with respect to the bag so as to not ever be called for obstruction. And let's drop this notion of teaching "hard nosed defensive play" to youngsters by having them deliberately block bags. That stuff might yield an extra out or a few outs at 10U or 12U but as soon as girls start playing this game for real, the kid is going to lose some teeth, break a leg, get severly spiked or receive a concussion.
For example, the first baseman I discussed is certainly going to get away with blocking the bag for a few years. She's a big strong kid. But soon she is going to find herself playing varsity high school ball in a league which has many Gold players. Those girls are going to get to know her tendency. They're going to talk about it and decide they need to teach her a lesson. Hard nosed defense is going to meet "sophisticated" offense from girls who can play this game at a high level and have seen these kinds of bush plays before. And whomever taught her this is going to realize it was a bad idea.
Similarly girls who unintentionally or intentionally get in the way of baserunners are going to meet kids who know how to deal with that. Players talk about this kind of thing all the time. And many recognize an opportunity to draw an obstruction call when they see it. The problem is, when girls who can run a 2.9 or 2.7 decide they want to hit that girl because she's in the way, real harm can be done.
As an additional thought, interference, the act of impeding or confusing a defensive player attempting to make a play should also be taught and understood. The most common scenario in which this is called happens when a middle infielder is making an initial play on a batted ball and the baserunner runs into her. I watched a game recently in which this happened and none of the players seemed to understand what was being called. I looked at the coaches for the offensive team and they too appeared to not understand the call. The coaches actually gave off the impression of being happy when their runner ran into the SS. I have to think they believed this to be obstruction. It isn't. It is interference, the runner is out and the batter-baserunner is awarded first base.
Too many of us think the baserunner is required to stay in the basepath when running the bases. The only time this is actually an issue is when a defensive player is trying to make a tag. That is, if a player is attempting to tag you and you leave the basepath to avoid the tag, you are out. But leaving the basepaths when nobody is trying to tag you is never an out. So if you are on second and a grounder is hit to the SS, you should go behind her so as to avoid interference. If she is deep and you cannot possibly run behind her, go in front but do not run over the grounder or otherwise do anything that can cause an umpire to think you caused her to be confused or otherwise impeded her making a play. That sounds complicated but it is not. If you do anything that causes her to have trouble making a play, you can be called out for interference.
I don't know if I have ever watched 8s play where the fielders don't get in the way of runners. I don't recall an obstruction ever being called at such games. Less frequently the same sort of thing happens in 10U and, again, it is seldom called. But I have seen as many as ten obstruction calls in a single 12U game. I have seen fewer in 14U because the girls are more experienced but I think I have seen more injuries due to an obstruction there as well. In 18U and high school ball, I see lots more injuries from offensive and defensive players colliding. And girls who deliberately or unintentionally get in the way are often not only the victim, but also get the worse end of the bargain. So teach your 8s and 10s to avoid obstructing runners. Don't teach them where not to stand. Teach them where to stand. And don't forget to teach your baserunners not to shy away from fielders in their way. Yes, we all should avoid contact of all kinds whenever possible. But bumping into the 2B when stealing is sometimes the only way you'll get the call. In teaching this, d0on't forget to go over interference. A runner who does not shy away from a fielder standing in the basepaths should be equally cognizant of the fact that if she is making a play on a batted ball, it is you who must stay out of the way.Labels: coaching, interference, obstruction
Permanent Link: Psychological Obstruction!
 
Put The Rules Online, Now!!
by Dave
Monday, June 15, 2009
There are a couple rule changes which have come to my attention. Here they are with the reasons I was interested in them.
I) Pitching Arm Rotations
A reader wrote in to ask about a pitching rule change which effected a girl she saw pitching in a Pony qualifier. The rule at issue involves limiting a pitcher to, as she said, "a maximum of one and a half clockwise revolutions." She noted that the motion was picked up by the umps who explained it to the pitcher and coach but allowed her to finish the inning.
I had not read or otherwise heard about this change so I went online to look. I was able to find reference to the new one and a half circle rule with respect to the National Federation of High Schools (NFHS) but, while Pony publishes its rule changes online, I do not have a current Pony rulebook so I cannot verify what the rule is. My understanding is the Pony rule prohibits "two revolutions."
I have to tell you that I find it annoying that all the large sanctioning bodies do not simply publish their rulebooks online. I've said it before and I know I will say it again but this is absurd. The year is 2009. Almost anything important can be found online. But Pony and most other organizations still do not publish their rules on their web sites.
Someone once suggested that perhaps sales of rulebooks are a money raiser for some organizations. OK. Pony charges $1.50 for a copy of its rules. Just how much could they possibly raise after costs of printing, packaging, etc.? They could hold a one day bake sale at one of their national tournaments and make the same amount. Some organizations charge more but I cannot imagine anyone is getting rich off the rulebook business.
Maybe it would cost too much to convert the book to an online version and then to keep it on a server. Anyone who tells you that does not know how modern books are published. They also do not understand how little web server space actually costs. The fact is there is no reason any organization would keep its rulebook offline unless it affirmateively wanted to keep the rulebook out of the hands of others. That's not a very good reason since anyone could have, for example, Pony's rulebook for a buck fifty. There is no good reason why all these organizations, Little League, Babe Ruth, Pony, FAST, USSSA, NSA, ASA don't all have their rulebooks available online. Lest I confuse anyone, of course, some groups, like NSA, actually do put their rulebook online.
In any event, I was not able to locate any Pony rule change for 2009 which referred to the NFHS change language. I don't recall such a change for 2008. So I have to assume the older rules are still valid. My 2007 Pony rulebook contains a prohibition against "two revolutions."
The high school rule change is here. It reads in relevant part:
"Change the pitching windup requirement to a maximum of one and a half clockwise
revolutions.
ART. 4 The pitcher may use any windup desired provided:
d. the pitcher does not make more than one and a half clockwise revolutions of the arm in the windmill pitch.
...
The ball does not have to be released the first time past the hip.
...
Rationale: More and more pitchers are pushing the rule to the limit in an attempt to gain an advantage by deceiving the batter. The change will make an illegal pitch easier to identify and enforcement more consistent."
Making enforcement consistent is a nice objective. Yet it almost never happens. We have seen some blatant sorts of illegalities committed by pitchers in high school for several years. Possibly the most common one occurs when the pitcher takes a little teeny-tiny step forward with her pivot foot, off the rubber, just like you-know-who does in international play. Another common prohibited pitching motion involves the archetypical crow-hop where a leap is followed by obtaining a new point of impetus. Leaps are less frequently seen but do happen. The leap, where the pivot foot becomes airborn before ball release rather than dragging away from the rubber is not my favorite call. The reason I don't like it is it is often precipitated by poor pitching area conditions. It's not the pitcher's fault.
This brings me to a story I want to tell but wasn't sure where or how to bring it up. This year a coach was awarded conference coach of the year by a local newspaper. That paper, of course, published an article explaining its choice. The sited a game in the earlier rounds of the conference tournament. I have a problem with that because I saw the game.
Due to rainy weather, the game had to be played at night. The host team, the higher seed, had it moved to a local recreational complex. The field on which it was played was a LL baseball field, complete with grass infield and a smallish mound. The pitching rubber was up on a hill and the conditions around it were poor. To me the game should not have been played on a baseball field. To me, the pitching circle conditions were illegal and unacceptable. yet I suspect that the coach of the year picked the field not merely because it had lights, if you know what I mean.
During the course of the game, the coach of the year twisted up the umps and complained about illegal pitches. The opposing pitcher was obviously struggling with the subpar pitching area. Finally the umps called an illegal pitch on her. That was with the first runner to reach third base. That as all the offensive "production" the coach of the year's team needed. The winning run scored on an illegal pitch called with a runner on third, such pitch being caused by the winning coach's choice of illegal pitching area on a baseball diamond, a field unsuitable for softball play, not to mention his badgering of the umps for the pitcher's difficulty acclimating to the illegal pitching area. ABSURD!
To go a little further, it is interesting to me that the person who wrote to me also included photographs of the motion which was called illegal. After reviewing the rule change as well as the motivation behind it, it is clear to me that this girl's motion offended neither the spirit nor the letter of the rule. The umps were quite wrong. Further, they were enforcing an NFHS rule in a Pony game. I understand that this can happen but it is a bit ridiculous.
But that's enough of that.
II) Pitcher's glove
My daughter got a little annoyed because her coach took a permanet marker and colored in the insignia on her glove. The coach told me he had done this because the ump had complained to him and I pretty much ignored it. The problem was the insignia, a very small item, was "optical" yellow in color.
I understand that umps can sometimes make up rules and require them to be adhered to. I've seen this done many times before. I figured that's what happened and who cares anyway. I'm not big on things like this. My daughter would just have to learn to live with it.
I was a little annoyed since this glove was purchased fairly recently and I had no idea why the ump had complained. But in researching other potentially bigger changes, I discovered something on Pony's site. For 2009, they made one rule change which would necessitate the umpire's action. That change reads:
"Page 24 Gloves/Mitts
Rule 3 Add: Optic yellow to the circle colors not allowed on gloves"
Another change I noted was:
"Rule 3 Added: A pitcher shall not wear any item on the pitching hand,
Sec 11 wrist, arm or thigh, which may be distracting to the batter."
I get both of these but had heard nothing of them just as I had not heard of the NFHS pitching revolutions change. I am most likely to blame for not keeping abreast. I'm usually pretty good about these sorts of things. But it does strike me that these organizations are not doing a great job of getting the word out to the softball public.
One of the leading principles of our system of government in this coountry is a concept which has been with us since the beginning. It says ignorance of the law is no excuse. That's rich! In this day and age, almost everyone is ignorant of some laws.
Recently I heard someone talking about a change to the booster seat requirement in my state. I went hunting for it but found nothing. I did find one interesting item however. A police department had this to say about the state's existing law:
Boosters are required for "passengers who are younger than 8 and weigh less than 80 pounds." The only problem is, that's not how the law reads!
The law says "passengers who are younger than 8 or weigh less than 80 pounds." (emphasis my own) There's quite a difference between the two. In one case, the actual laws tells you that if your child is very small for his or her age, say 75 pounds at age 16, she has to be seated in a booster seat! Try to enforce that one with your 16U slap hitting speedster!! But no worries mate, the cops won't enforce it either since they apparently have it wrong!!!
Ignorance of the law is no excuse!
We are coming perilously close to anarchy in this society. It matters not how many laws there are, nor how specific those laws are, when the body of knowledge is too large for anyone to possibly retain, let alone understand, let alone keep up with changes to. We all need a little help and the news outlets, well the news outlets do a poor job of reporting actual facts. They are far too interested in pushing their own agendas. But enough of reality, let's get back to softball.
Softball rules are not all that difficult to understand, I guess. But you really need to study them to have a full understanding. For instance, a few weeks ago, I pointed out that a batter-baserunner who stops while running to first in order to prevent or delay a tag can be called out if she takes a step backwards to slow or impede the fielder from tagging her. This is very impotant since, the ball is dead and runners must return to the last base occupied before the pitch. If you hit a ball to the 1B while your baserunner races home from third, the last thing you want to see is the batter-baserunner stop and take a step backwards. If that happens, all runners return to their previous base, before the pitch.
That's simple enough. I checked out the rule, digested it, let you know what's going on and went on my merry way. I haven't seen that play since, nor any discussion of it except the next night in the WCWS when it was briefly mentioned. But in my kids' games we had a somewhat similar play develop with a runner who was already at first and a grounder hit to the 2B.
I told the team coaches about the rule but I had not thought the whole thing through. I got it wrong. It only applies to a batter-baserunner and the commentary speficially talks about running towards first. The same is not true of a runner at first heading for second, and for good cause. If the fielder were to throw to first, the baserunner would no longer be forced and could return to first (with liability to be put out along the way). The same is not true of a batter baserunner who, quite obviously, cannot return to home.
This just goes to show you that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. I misinterpreted the rule to include a prohibition of backward steop by any forced runner. That is, of course, not the case. You have to be careful in understanding the rules of the game.
My point is really only that in a world as filled with rules as ours is, it becomes more imperative for organizations such as NFHS, Pony, ASA, Little League, etc. to make a greater effort to let us all know what the rules and rule changes are. We shouldn't find out via casual conversations with umpires or in pregame meetings. It should be patently obvious to anyone who plays the game that "optic" insignia are no longer allowed, that pitchers cannot make two and a half circles, that smallish 17 year old sons do not have to be placed in car seats on the way to be dropped off at the Marine Corps recruiting station.
We nbeed the rules online now. We need to have all rule changes distributed out to the playing public as well as umpires. Umpires should know that they must apply the rules for the type of game they are calling, not cross apply rules from one body to another's game. Cops should double check their written work, particularly interpretations of laws, before they send it out to the public or put something online!
To all you softball sanctioning bodies, put the darn rules, the actual darn rules, online!Labels: rules
Permanent Link: Put The Rules Online, Now!!
Thanks For The Thankless Efforts
by Dave
Monday, June 15, 2009
I ran into a friend and neighbor of mine Sunday. He looked bad. His back was killing him. He was exhausted and wanted to go home to bed but he couldn't. He told me he had worked for 3 hours to get a field ready for his son's two hour long game of 14U travel baseball. This guy is a triathlete but no amount of running, cycling, and swimming could put him in good enough shape to work the fields this past weekend. He was not alone.
If I say it was wet Saturday, many in my area would laugh. It has been "wet" for weeks. We have been rained on at most tournaments. High school season was extremely compressed this year, thanks to the weather. The grass is doing great sans irrigation. Bugs are living in bug heaven. Carbon dioxide has been sequestered at record rates thanks to the out-of-control growth of brush and trees.
We were at a fastpitch tournament Saturday and knew that there was a decent possibility of rain beginning around 3:00 pm. Unfortunately, our last seeding game was scheduled for 3:30. After game 2, the girls did what tourney girls do and the parents ate lunch while sitting around watching the clouds build off in one direction. At about 2:30-45, the girls went to warm up while we kept vigil over the gathering storm clouds. As 3:30 approached, a few drops were felt, then a few more. Gradually the clouds slid over our heads and a steady rain began to fall just short of our scheduled start time.
The girls came back over and got beneath portable awnings. We watched while teams continued to warm up on outfield grass at 3 fields. Coaches with towels dried balls. [; Players threw soggy ones over each other's heads. Our girls stopped warming when they noticed umpires congregating beneath other portable awnings at and after the scheduled start times. We imagined that the forecast had changed for the worse and we waited to have our afternoon cancelled.
Some few of us checked forecasts on car radios and mobile phones. We reported back that most likely things were going to break up shortly and then the sun would come out. But we noticed a sheen forming on the fields as water began to build. Puddles began to grow in outfields. It wasn't looking good. As the rain continued to fall, perhaps harder as time wore on, eventually word came that we would cancel the remainder of the day and reconvene Sunday morning, early of course, to play one seeding game and then the elimination round.
The rain never ceased overnight. I suppose by 3:00 AM, it let up and then stopped. But by 4 or 5, the air continued to sweat. I could feel beeds of condensation form on my skin as I checked out the sky before loading up the cooler for what figured to be a long day. We packed up the car and headed for the fields about 6:15. When we arrived at the complex, we saw men standing around staring at what looked from afar like swimming pools filled with brown sand. The fields, the tournament, everything, was under water. The forecasts hadn't called for it but we received essentially the wringing out of a very damp atmosphere for about 12 hours overnight.
I don't know how much rain fell but it was a lot. There was no repairing these fields. You could have had one hundred or more human beings involved in the project. You could have shipped in bone dry clay and resurfaced the darn things. The ground was so wet, nothing could have made these fields playable. And nobody tried.
Instead, we were shipped to the "one good field" in town, probably the county, if not the state. There, no fewer than 7 men worked the entire thing as best they could. We played one game and then the remainder of the tournament was called. Oh well, you really cannot fight Mother Nature. Many tried but few succeeded.
Later that day, in early afternoon, the sun finally came out. I took one of my daughters out to work some pitches on a real field, if it had dried enough. Afterwards, we noted some baseball games at far off fields so we went to see what was going on. That's where I found my friend rubbing his back, calling pitches and watching his son play.
There were any number of baseball and softball events scheduled for this weekend in places all over a tri-state region which shared the rainfall. In most spots, no games were played. In a few, fields had good enough drainage to allow elbow (shoulder and back) grease enough to make them playable. I imagine that the same sort of thing I witnessed played itself out in many locations. Fathers and mothers worked rakes, emptied bags of quick-dry substance, dug holes in which to use shop vacs to draw out the water, etc. Parents who just wanted their kids to have the opportunity to play worked themselves into spasms of varying muscle groups to prepare fields in an effort to just get in a game or two.
There are no thanks for these hardworking folks. The kids don't overtly appreciate their efforts. They won't benefit in tangible ways far into the future just because they were able to play this weekend. Probably more parents of players like me wished they could have stayed in bed beyond the rooster's crowing Sunday. You just cannot look at a single day like yesterday and think, "gee aren't we lucky we got to play."
But the truth is, the kids did benefit. There is such limited time, though it doesn't always feel like it, for kids to get out and just play ball. My kid got to pitch 4 innings and while it was not a character builder from which she'll draw for years to come, she did get a little better for the experience. She learned something yesterday playing that one game. I don't know exactly what it is but she got something out of it. It may just barely be incremental. It may not matter much in the long run. But she did get something out of it. And that's really what parenting is all about.
On a moment to moment basis, it is difficult to identify what it is you have taught your kids. They'll never thank you for what you do teach them. Many times, you are fighting things bigger than yourself. Sometimes, no matter what you do, it doesn't do any good. Often, even if it does some good, it costs you more than you can spare. But you do it anyway because you want for your kids. You want them protected. You want them to get exercise. You want them to learn important life lessons. You want them to avoid drugs, bad grades, trouble with the police, trouble with other things, etc. So you put out.
You drive them to softball practice. You take them for extra help at school. You rearrange your life for your kids' benefit. You undertake a huge assortment of things you would rather not do, all for the benefit of someone who will probably never say thank you. But you do it because you care more than words can ever show. You do it because you are biologically and psychologically predisposed to do it.
So, here is your thanks. I know it isn't much. I know it doesn't begin to repay you for the degree of effort. But thanks, nonetheless. And, in closing, I would like to remind you that not everyone does what you do. You may see yourself as one of very many but that's just a perception. Not everyone got up yesterday morning before 10.
We may not often take notice but many parents could not care less what their kids have to do. They aren't willing to go out and rake mud, spread drying compound, get up before the dawn, drive all over the kingdom to tick-infested jungle encircled, uncomfortable places to provide a ball game or three. You did it. And your kids ultimately will benefit.
So, thanks. That's it.Labels: parenting
Permanent Link: Thanks For The Thankless Efforts
|
|
|
