This should be enough to ban cleats in High School

[Sam]

The argument here has nothing to do with boys vs. girls...it has to do with a piece of equipment which the FED has effectively endorsed

Sure it has to do with gender.

EVERYTHING you said in the rest of your post is ALSO true for boys and baseball. Including banning bats that were too hot.

What's the difference?

....a piece of equipment which allows another player to injure YOUR kid....your kid can choose to still wear rubber cleats...and it won't affect her ability to be injured by a player who chooses to wear metal cleats. The metal cleats are dangerous...everybody knows it.

ASA deemed the 100mph bats to be dangerous and outlawed them. The FED should take the same steps with the metal cleats.

The difference is that I am not arguing that metal cleats are OK for boys baseball any more than they are OK for girls softball.

The boys can at least make the traction argument....only because more of their game is played on grass.

[greenandblue]

Try your local swimming pool/swim club, no difference in boys or girls' equipment, well,... there is one difference but it's covered by the swimsuit. But it's a safe sport and the other competitors can't hurt you.

[Skarp]

Try your local swimming pool/swim club, no difference in boys or girls' equipment, well,... there is one difference but it's covered by the swimsuit. But it's a safe sport and the other competitors can't hurt you.

As I certain team manager I know recently said, "swimming isn't a sport...it's a way to keep from drowning."

[3Bsnag]

As a side note, the arguments regarding boys vs girls is crap. They are all athletes that are demanding a lot on their body in a sport that carries the risk of injuries. Do what you can to protect, but freakin' play ball and quit whining.

Kids in little league are also "athletes who are demanding a lot on their bodies in a sport that carries the risk of injuries." So are powder-puff football players--by your logic (i.e., that it's "crap" to take into account physical differences between the participants) I suppose we should give the girls helmets and pads and make it full contact. Same with girls Lacrosse, etc.

Interesting that the other side always has to be "whining," and not just making a counter-argument. I suppose I could say something like "you probably aren't worried about disfiguring injuries because your daughter already looks like a burlap sack full of turnips," but of course that wouldn't be any more appropriate, accurate (I hope ) or useful than your "whining" remark.

Bats, balls, cleats, etc., are all dangerous, but they are also all necessary equipment for the game. Metal cleats are not necessary, and the sport doesn't really lose much without them.

I'm all for a good argument and seeing both sides of the story. My problem with this is we have a dad of an injured player and a lawyer on here trying to ban an OPTION that recently got approved without enough time to see the advantages/disadvantages and are already trying to take away for the entire population. This isn't just a post on HB, it's a petition circling, at the very least, North Texas.

The pictures are ugly and saddening, but have you read the testimonials on the Gameface website? I'm sure those parents have some pictures too. Stories like how their DD's orbital bones were broken and her eyeball stitched so it could hang in place. Or jaws wired shut, teeth protruding from lips, etc.

I just want the option.

[Sam]

As a side note, the arguments regarding boys vs girls is crap. They are all athletes that are demanding a lot on their body in a sport that carries the risk of injuries. Do what you can to protect, but freakin' play ball and quit whining.

Kids in little league are also "athletes who are demanding a lot on their bodies in a sport that carries the risk of injuries." So are powder-puff football players--by your logic (i.e., that it's "crap" to take into account physical differences between the participants) I suppose we should give the girls helmets and pads and make it full contact. Same with girls Lacrosse, etc.

Interesting that the other side always has to be "whining," and not just making a counter-argument. I suppose I could say something like "you probably aren't worried about disfiguring injuries because your daughter already looks like a burlap sack full of turnips," but of course that wouldn't be any more appropriate, accurate (I hope ) or useful than your "whining" remark.

Bats, balls, cleats, etc., are all dangerous, but they are also all necessary equipment for the game. Metal cleats are not necessary, and the sport doesn't really lose much without them.

I'm all for a good argument and seeing both sides of the story. My problem with this is we have a dad of an injured player and a lawyer on here trying to ban an OPTION that recently got approved without enough time to see the advantages/disadvantages and are already trying to take away for the entire population. This isn't just a post on HB, it's a petition circling, at the very least, North Texas.

The pictures are ugly and saddening, but have you read the testimonials on the Gameface website? I'm sure those parents have some pictures too. Stories like how their DD's orbital bones were broken and her eyeball stitched so it could hang in place. Or jaws wired shut, teeth protruding from lips, etc.

I just want the option.

Why? You want the option for your kid to severely injure MY kid because YOU want her to be able to wear metal cleats that provide no advantage over rubber/plastic....why?

[Skarp]

...your kid can choose to still wear rubber cleats...and it won't affect her ability to be injured by a player who chooses to wear metal cleats.

This argument should have disposed of the "game face" analogies and the like, but I see they are still surfacing.

To the extent that metal cleats do confer a real competitive edge, then wearing them isn't really "optional" if they are allowed--you either wear them or you get out-performed. And if they don't confer such an advantage, the whole argument is moot. Hey, I'm all for options. I especially want to opt out of having your kid slide into mine with metal knives sticking off of her feet.

[3Bsnag]

I wish I had saved the email with the petition. There was a picture that followed that was identical to this injury. It was from 2006 of Taylor Hoagland ('09 verb to Texas). Big gash and stitches in the leg from plastic/rubber cleats on a slide into 3B.

BTW, my "burlap sack full of turnips" wears turf shoes, not even those horrible, skin ripping, tendon-tearing weapons you call rubber cleats. I want those added to the ban list too.

[Skarp]

Why do the people that don't like something always feel others should fall in line on their side of the argument? The rules say you can wear them, if you don't like it move on.

I think the discussion is about what the rule should be. Presumably a similar discussion took place when metal cleats were first introduced to the sport. Maybe advocates of metal cleats should have read the rule book at that time and then, if they didn't like it, moved on. But they didn't, so I'm not sure I understand why I'm supposed to.

[Randi Jo]

Martin - Yeah, got to hand it to you - there is more similarity to Rollerball than I thought - but, if I recall the Rollerball players had more protection! (btw that's my next Netflix rental)

3Bsnag – you are correct that injuries occur from plastic cleats. The point is that the plastic cleat caused an injury with a 2 stitches versus a metal cleat with 27 and ended a high school season!

We all know that injuries are inherent in contact sports. We accept the fact that our dd’s could be hit with a ball, bat or break a bone – been there, done that and have the medical bills. The one thing we did not sign up for was lacerations and puncture wounds caused by metal cleats that will permanently scar our dd’s. Think of a pitcher covering the plate on a passed ball...

This thread was initiated because there is more than one injury due to spikes as stated in my previous post. Those who opt to sign the petition to "reinstate the ban" could do so, and those who oppose do not have to sign.

There is a time and place for the introduction of metal cleats, who would you rather train your dd to use them, your local high school coach (and there are some great ones out there) or your 18 Gold Coaches?

[Sam]

Maybe some inventor type could come up with retractable cleats. That way when the player slides they automatically return inside the shoe so there is no way to harm anyone. Makes about as much sense as the " if it saves one child" argument.
There are so many analogies to other activities and sports, and we have heard many of them, regarding dangers that could occur. Yet these don't cause wholesale panic and over reaction on the part of those involved in those activities. Why do the people that don't like something always feel others should fall in line on their side of the argument? The rules say you can wear them, if you don't like it move on.

The great thing about our sport is that we can lobby to change things we don't like or find to be harmful to our children. Its pretty much that way for just about anything in the USA. What seperates us from other countries is that we can refuse to "move on." We can stand up for what is right (in the background, you now hear..."mine eyes have seen the glory.."). We can put forth our opinions..whether right, wrong or indifferent. We can collectively or individually analyze an issue and say "I don't like that and I'm going to do everything in my power to change it." We are Americans, the most hated people on the face of the earth (glory glory hallelujah...). Yet our country is the single country people would give their right arm to live in (and if they would put mines on our southern border...lots of people would literally give body parts to come here). Well, I, for one will not stand here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America....gentlemen....