Stop Little League Vote to Take Year of Eligibility
233 Comments
P
Patrick Siembieda
11 years ago
The 8 year olds are the wrong age group to target for the age determination change. Please contact your local Regional rep (or all of them, it is a Little League Int'l rule after all). The list of contact names and e-mail addresses can be found on the Little League web site.
P
Patrick Siembieda
11 years ago
The 8 year olds are the wrong age group to target for the age determination change. Please contact your local Regional rep (or all of them, it is a Little League Int'l rule after all). The list of contact names and e-mail addresses can be found on the Little League web site.
L
Lance Carroll
11 years ago
Why penalize kids for a nonexistent problem.
L
Lance Carroll
11 years ago
Why penalize kids for a nonexistent problem.
M
Melissa Lawton
11 years ago
Please don't do this -- it is unfair to children who happen to be born between May and December 2006, you are giving them no chance to succeed against much older players. Why is this necessary?
M
Melissa Lawton
11 years ago
Please don't do this -- it is unfair to children who happen to be born between May and December 2006, you are giving them no chance to succeed against much older players. Why is this necessary?
A
Andy Katz
11 years ago
Unfair solution to a nonexistent problem.
A
Andy Katz
11 years ago
Unfair solution to a nonexistent problem.
J
J White
11 years ago
The new implementation absolutely hammers kids born between May and December of 2006. Not only do they lose a year, good luck playing against kids 20 months older. Not just next year, but every year! No chance at all stars either. Why would we stick with Little League and not move to another league that won't steal a year of eligibility?
J
J White
11 years ago
The new implementation absolutely hammers kids born between May and December of 2006. Not only do they lose a year, good luck playing against kids 20 months older. Not just next year, but every year! No chance at all stars either. Why would we stick with Little League and not move to another league that won't steal a year of eligibility?
J
jack gilardi, jr
11 years ago
this is just wrong, why not make this ruling starting with 6 year olds
J
jack gilardi, jr
11 years ago
this is just wrong, why not make this ruling starting with 6 year olds
D
Dustin Peterson
11 years ago
I am the fathe of 8 year old who is now league age 9 based on the new rules. The implementation of this rule is completley unfair to 8 year old kids. They are now going to be competing with kids potential 20 months olde than them for summer all-star spots. This is so unfair to these kids - what can we do to stop this?
D
Dustin Peterson
11 years ago
I am the fathe of 8 year old who is now league age 9 based on the new rules. The implementation of this rule is completley unfair to 8 year old kids. They are now going to be competing with kids potential 20 months olde than them for summer all-star spots. This is so unfair to these kids - what can we do to stop this?
M
Michael Defoster
11 years ago
Exactly, my son will lose a year as well. The 8 year olds will be crushed with this rushed implementation. They lose a year of eligibility and must also play the remainder of their LL days competing for spots against kids who are potentially a year and a half older.
M
Michael Defoster
11 years ago
I have a child who turns 8 in December. He played last year as a 7 year old. Next year, he'll be a league-age 9 year old, despite being 8 all season. He loses a year of Little League, and must also compete against the current 9 year olds who are grandfathered in.
How could anyone vote for a rule that will have kids in the same age group despite possibly being 19 months different in age? How is a child who is 19 months younger than someone the same "league age" supposed to contend for a tournament team spot?
M
Michael Defoster
11 years ago
Little League International has essentially screwed last year's league age 7 kids by making them 9 year olds in the 2015 season. As a result, not only do they lose a year of Little League, but they must also compete against kids who are a year and half older for tournament rosters. A child could be 8 the entire season, yet be deemed as league age 9, while playing against kids who are 10 for much of the season (league age 9). How could any logical adult think this is a good idea?
M
Michael Defoster
11 years ago
Little League International has essentially screwed last year's league age 7 kids by making them 9 year olds in the 2015 season. As a result, not only do they lose a year of Little League, but they must also compete against kids who are a year and half older for tournament rosters. A child could be 8 the entire season, yet be deemed as league age 9, while playing against kids who are 10 for much of the season (league age 9). How could any logical adult think this is a good idea?
J
Jason Mercier
11 years ago
As a Player Agent without a 50/70 option, I will lose players, eventually.
J
Jason Mercier
11 years ago
As a Player Agent without a 50/70 option, I will lose players, eventually.
The 8 year olds are the wrong age group to target for the age determination change. Please contact your local Regional rep (or all of them, it is a Little League Int'l rule after all). The list of contact names and e-mail addresses can be found on the Little League web site.
The 8 year olds are the wrong age group to target for the age determination change. Please contact your local Regional rep (or all of them, it is a Little League Int'l rule after all). The list of contact names and e-mail addresses can be found on the Little League web site.
Why penalize kids for a nonexistent problem.
Why penalize kids for a nonexistent problem.
Please don't do this -- it is unfair to children who happen to be born between May and December 2006, you are giving them no chance to succeed against much older players. Why is this necessary?
Please don't do this -- it is unfair to children who happen to be born between May and December 2006, you are giving them no chance to succeed against much older players. Why is this necessary?
Unfair solution to a nonexistent problem.
Unfair solution to a nonexistent problem.
The new implementation absolutely hammers kids born between May and December of 2006. Not only do they lose a year, good luck playing against kids 20 months older. Not just next year, but every year! No chance at all stars either. Why would we stick with Little League and not move to another league that won't steal a year of eligibility?
The new implementation absolutely hammers kids born between May and December of 2006. Not only do they lose a year, good luck playing against kids 20 months older. Not just next year, but every year! No chance at all stars either. Why would we stick with Little League and not move to another league that won't steal a year of eligibility?
this is just wrong, why not make this ruling starting with 6 year olds
this is just wrong, why not make this ruling starting with 6 year olds
I am the fathe of 8 year old who is now league age 9 based on the new rules. The implementation of this rule is completley unfair to 8 year old kids. They are now going to be competing with kids potential 20 months olde than them for summer all-star spots. This is so unfair to these kids - what can we do to stop this?
I am the fathe of 8 year old who is now league age 9 based on the new rules. The implementation of this rule is completley unfair to 8 year old kids. They are now going to be competing with kids potential 20 months olde than them for summer all-star spots. This is so unfair to these kids - what can we do to stop this?
Exactly, my son will lose a year as well. The 8 year olds will be crushed with this rushed implementation. They lose a year of eligibility and must also play the remainder of their LL days competing for spots against kids who are potentially a year and a half older.
I have a child who turns 8 in December. He played last year as a 7 year old. Next year, he'll be a league-age 9 year old, despite being 8 all season. He loses a year of Little League, and must also compete against the current 9 year olds who are grandfathered in. How could anyone vote for a rule that will have kids in the same age group despite possibly being 19 months different in age? How is a child who is 19 months younger than someone the same "league age" supposed to contend for a tournament team spot?
Little League International has essentially screwed last year's league age 7 kids by making them 9 year olds in the 2015 season. As a result, not only do they lose a year of Little League, but they must also compete against kids who are a year and half older for tournament rosters. A child could be 8 the entire season, yet be deemed as league age 9, while playing against kids who are 10 for much of the season (league age 9). How could any logical adult think this is a good idea?
Little League International has essentially screwed last year's league age 7 kids by making them 9 year olds in the 2015 season. As a result, not only do they lose a year of Little League, but they must also compete against kids who are a year and half older for tournament rosters. A child could be 8 the entire season, yet be deemed as league age 9, while playing against kids who are 10 for much of the season (league age 9). How could any logical adult think this is a good idea?
As a Player Agent without a 50/70 option, I will lose players, eventually.
As a Player Agent without a 50/70 option, I will lose players, eventually.