Funny, I must of read differently, and I apologize for my bluntness (still support what I said). Thank you for shedding light on that.Flare Phoenix said:
Poll: Kid Banned From Scoring For Being Too Awsome
- Thread starter SacremPyrobolum
- Start date
you can tell who didn't read the article, since the rule applies to anyone, it is technically fair, plus, if someone scored 3 touchdowns AND the team is up by at least 14 points feels like high requirements for blocking a player. Also the coach will just switch the players around so the kid will be better rounded.
No harm no foul.
No harm no foul.
"According to Arkansas Fox affiliate Fox 16, 11-year-old Demias Jimerson has emerged as such a dominant running back that the Wilson Intermediate Football League he plays in has reinstated a bylaw called the "Madre Hill rule," which bars him from scoring a touchdown if he has already scored three times and his team has a lead of 14 points or more."Joby Baumann said:
The article seems to say the rule only applies to him. Where does it say this rule applies to everyone?
That's a terrible analogy.azzxl said:
It'd be like if the teacher graded on a curve making it so that only half the class could pass and the only A went to the number 1 student. The ruling just makes it so the kid isn't the only one playing.
I figured that when they said "he" they were explaining how the rule worked using the kid as an example, further reasearch may be requiredFlare Phoenix said:
He's in the 6th grade. And it seems like there is no match for him. So that kinda rules out the "bump him up" idea.Fragmented_Faith said:
We have to remember that this is basically a youth league, and just like every youth league (including Little League Baseball) there are rules that help the game be fun for everyone who plays. Scoring caps for innings/quarters/periods/halves (depending on the sport), inclusion rules where every kid on the team has to play for a minimum amount of time (or innings, in baseball), and yes, even these less-used rules limiting certain players. It's all in the spirit of sportsmanship, because a kid whose team loses all their games and gets blown out consistently, or who doesn't get to play because they're the worst on the team, will just want to quit.
There are more competitive leagues and tournament leagues that focus more on winning than on sportsmanship and a fun environment - those can have whatever rules they choose - that this sixth grader could play on if he chose, where he wouldn't be held back and by all accounts would be subjected to a higher level of competition. But in this youth football league the focus is on playing the sport in a way that makes the game fun, but aims not to give one team too much of an advantage or disadvantage, and that's perfectly fine.
There are more competitive leagues and tournament leagues that focus more on winning than on sportsmanship and a fun environment - those can have whatever rules they choose - that this sixth grader could play on if he chose, where he wouldn't be held back and by all accounts would be subjected to a higher level of competition. But in this youth football league the focus is on playing the sport in a way that makes the game fun, but aims not to give one team too much of an advantage or disadvantage, and that's perfectly fine.
I think it's fine because the rule only applies if he has scored 3 touch downs and his team is far in the lead. Also, everyone seems fine with it and the rule is there not to hold down the player but to allow all the players a chance to learn and hone their skills in the game. Keep in mind this is 5th and 6th grade football (american football) and the purpose is more or less to introduce the game to young children as opposed to strict competition.
As long as pretty much everyone is fine with it, I would have to say its fine.
As long as pretty much everyone is fine with it, I would have to say its fine.
It elementry school football not the NCAA. You have to let the other kids have fun too.
It's not like it effects the game at all. The rule is only in effect if the team is up 15 and the kid's already scored 3 times.
OT: "Banned" has a very negative connotation, so the OP along with the video is kind of bias.
It's not like it effects the game at all. The rule is only in effect if the team is up 15 and the kid's already scored 3 times.
OT: "Banned" has a very negative connotation, so the OP along with the video is kind of bias.
I don't see the point in limiting his touchdowns. If the kid is good, let him rack up the points. I know they're middle school kids at the most, but if any opposing coach was worth even a slight damn, they'd be able to make a play to work around it.
Don't hate someone for being good. They're there to give people something to aim for.
Don't hate someone for being good. They're there to give people something to aim for.
It's a mercy rule. It's not stopping him from winning, playing, or scoring.
It's stopping the other team being dominated.
Anyone who enjoys match making that doesn't pit n00bs against pros needs to see the parallel and stop complaining.
As a coach and Student Teacher (I'm at uni studying education) this is seen all the time in schools. It's not a new thing and I remember it happening in primary school in the 90s when I was a kid.
It's stopping the other team being dominated.
Anyone who enjoys match making that doesn't pit n00bs against pros needs to see the parallel and stop complaining.
As a coach and Student Teacher (I'm at uni studying education) this is seen all the time in schools. It's not a new thing and I remember it happening in primary school in the 90s when I was a kid.
I truly hate these threads for this reason, yet I can never avoid reading them in horrific fascination to see all the people posting without reading the article. (I'm fine with those who have read the article and disagree with it, it's the crazy crusaders that clearly haven't a clue whats happening yet respond with righteous fury regardless)SilentCom said:
My favourite posts on this thread are the people who use this as an example to rant about "Political Correctness gone mad" and as evidence for our generations degrading values in education, despite the clear mention in the article that the rule was an old one that was reinstated, originating back in the 1980's.
Some day when a really misleading, completely false thread pops up I'm going to snap, and wait till it reaches about 10 pages, and then quote every single person who clearly hasn't read the article and takes a provably wrong stance, before correcting them all in one mammoth post. It'll have to be an exceptionally misleading or biased article though... that one about the boy dying of masturbating 42 times would have been perfect, but it's old news now.
This strikes me as a failing on the coaches part. If you have one player who is consistently dominating every team he plays against, then sub the kid out. You don't need to give a handicap that says he can only play the game a certain way. As a coach for little league soccer (6 & 7 year olds), we have similar things happen, where one kid performs consistently better than his peers through natural talent or by more focused training. If you create a ruling that limits the kid, then not only is the boy held back, but the other team feels patronized and the game becomes meaningless for them. If another team wins because a star player scored the limit to allowable goals, then the winning team is going to feel cheated. They didn't win, they were given the victory because they couldn't beat the other team is a fair competition.
Captcha: way^5 tognized. Exponentials do show this post is tognized way too much.
Captcha: way^5 tognized. Exponentials do show this post is tognized way too much.
It seems fair enough. It only applies for the rest of this year, then he can go back to smashing the other team.