Originally Posted By hightp "I'll give you a hint, Disney is a major promoter of this activity." High School Musicals?
Originally Posted By hightp Football, baseball, wrestling all have to have their injuries, and the parents know it. My school had a waiver and insurance my parents had to sign before I could play. I imagine it's that way around the country.
Originally Posted By X-san ***Oh, does anyone here know what school extracurricular activity is the most dangerous for our kids? I'll give you a hint, Disney is a major promoter of this activity.*** Competitive cheerleading?
Originally Posted By dshyates Yup. My daughter used to be a school cheerleader and ended up being a Jr. Broncos cheerleader. Ther number of sprains, broken bones and neck injuries is amazing. But thats what happens when you allow your kid to tossed 20 ft into the air.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Dancing causes a lot of injuries. Yes, we know. (And, steps are taken to lessen the chance of injury to dancers...such as installing suspended flooring in dance studios. But here is the issue. Things can be safer. Can you prevent all injuries from baseball bats? No. But, the same boy hitting a ball with an aluminum bat will hit it with more velocity than if he were holding a wooden bat. Knowing that, doesn't it stand to reason to use the safer of the two? And, if you don't want to use the safer of the two...why? Is it because of money? If that is the case it isn't a good enough reason not to do it. Playgrounds use to be installed over ashpalt when I was a kid. Studies showed there would be less severe injuries if playgrounds were installed over sand, mulch or some other "softer" surface. Do injuries still occur on sand, mulch or other surface? Yes. Nothing can be 100% safe. But, if it can be safer...why not do it? Here is a question...Why don't pros use aluminum bats? Because they would kill people. Do people still get hurt in the majors as a result of balls driven off a wooden bat? Of course. But, that isn't justification to just go ahead and give them aluminum bats. I could get in a lengthy (and to most of you...boring) discussion about the physical changes in today's youth. I could also quote statistics on how aluminum bats have changed the game of baseball in the college ranks (and, although statistics aren't readily available..in youth sports as well) but that would be futile as the two sides to this debate will likely never agree.
Originally Posted By dshyates "Knowing that, doesn't it stand to reason to use the safer of the two?" How safe would it be if they used wiffle balls and plastic bats? I don't have a problem if a league, park, or school system decides to use wooden bats. I have a problem with a family suing everyone in sight because their kid got hurt after the parents allowed him to repeatedly stand in front of a projectile. They knew what bats the teams were using. It is an unfortunate accident, but is is not the bat manufaturers fault. If the bat had been manufactured incorrectly, exploded on impact blinding the kid then sue them into oblivion. But the bat performed as advertised. Can the parents go on a nationwide protest march to try to get the organizations to start using wooden bats. Sure. and I think that with their now hanicapped kid, they would be effective at getting things changed. But I think the path they have chosen is not the best way to bring attention to the issue. But it did get it into all the national papers, but the "focus" in the media is on frivolous lawsuits and not the dangers of aluminum bats.
Originally Posted By X-san ***But, the same boy hitting a ball with an aluminum bat will hit it with more velocity than if he were holding a wooden bat. Knowing that, doesn't it stand to reason to use the safer of the two?*** While I understand the nature of your argument, the devils advocate in me would ask "why not use a tennis racket then"?
Originally Posted By X-san ***Here is a question...Why don't pros use aluminum bats? Because they would kill people.*** Is that really the primary reason?
Originally Posted By X-san ***It is an unfortunate accident, but is is not the bat manufacturers fault.*** This pretty much sums up the way I feel about the issue. What is the ultimate goal here anyway, to outlaw aluminum baseball bats?
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Well, in addition to more injuries they would have to redesign the ball parks (not unlike golf has had to do to address the new equipment in it's sport). The path these parents have chosen (a lawsuit) is likely the only way this issue will be resolved. Aluminum bats were introduced in the 70s and since that time the debate has raged. How do things normally get changed in America? As a result of a lawsuit. Railroad operators know that crossings would be safer with lights and gates. When do crossings generally get lights and gates? After someone has died at the crossing.
Originally Posted By X-san Wahoo, obviously you are citing some very real and valid points. Much appreciated. I just don't see how *this* particular issue flies in terms of damages these companies "owe" to the kid (I wish Bill Gates would send him a hundred million bucks though...I really do!). Again, my original thought was "well, how do we know that the same thing wouldn't have happened if the kid had been injured by a ball hit from a wooden bat?". There's really no way to prove that one way or the other (I assume the lawyers will try to justify it through historical precedent, which if your info is correct is probably plentiful but still doesn't PROVE anything to me in this case...maybe the kid just had a weak heart?).
Originally Posted By wahooskipper There is certainly documentation to support that an aluminum bat has a larger sweet spot, causes a "trampoline effect" and a batted ball comes off the sweet spot of an aluminum bat at a faster velocity than a wood bat. Does any of that mean that Little League or any of these entites owe this family compensation? Not necessarily. But, if wood bats and aluminum bats serve the same purpose...and a wood bat is safer...why not use wood? Leather helmets were fine in the early days of football. Something safer was created.
Originally Posted By X-san You obviously know a lot more about this issue than most of us here, Wahoo. Appreciate the info very much!
Originally Posted By barboy "But, the same boy hitting a ball with an aluminum bat will hit it with more velocity than if he were holding a wooden bat. Knowing that, doesn't it stand to reason to use the safer of the two?" No, and I find your warrant severely faulty. And furthermore: the boy knew or should have known the inherent risks playing baseball the family knew or should have known the inherent risks of playing baseball They don't deserve anything and I hope the family is loses, loses big time. ***even better if the lawyer, who is looking for his or her 1/3 to 1/2 of a future settlement or award, puts in a truckload of hrs., pays some filing fees and expert testimony only to get nothing in return****
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 My problem isn't the fact that they are suing the manufacturer of the bat, fine, go for it. But they are suing Little League as well and that puts us on dangerous legal ground because Little League endorses the bat? OK, true story, I knew a guy who went 1 week without drinking any water, it was in the desert, brutal heat, but all he drank was Gatorade. Well, Electrolytes are fine and dandy but you need water as well and he ended up dying from lack of water. Michael Jordon endorses GatorAde, can the guy's family sue Michael Jordan now because the only reason why the guy drank Gatorade was because he wanted to "Be Like Mike" Very dangerous legal prescedent if Little League loses this case...
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Well, as much as I know there is a lot I don't. What is missing from the argument is the "passion" perspective. Kids like to hit home runs at an early age and parents (particularly of travel team kids) like their kids getting home runs b/c, believe it or not, college scouts take notice. Also not addressed is the aluminum bat manufacturers who have a pretty high stake in the debate (as do, admittedly, wood bat manufacturers). Again, I don't know that this lawsuit has much merit but I think it is too easy to pass this off as a "frivolous lawsuit by distraught and/or greedy parents."
Originally Posted By dshyates I don't have a problem with using safer products. But the parents and the kid knew they weren't. I just wondering why they aren't suing the kid who hit the ball.
Originally Posted By barboy "Why don't pros use aluminum bats? Because they would kill people." Do you know baseball or are you just theorizing here because I think you missed this by a mile.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Bud Selig also seems to feel that bats should be as safe as possible. Pretty lame, huh? Maybe those wimpy pros should just get with the program and accept the danger! I figure they should impregnate baseball bats with razor-sharp shards of metal. Then things would get REALLY exciting when a bat broke. <<It didn't garner much attention last week, but Bud Selig's revelation that Major League Baseball is examining whether maple bats have become too dangerous to be used in the game should be front page news. After watching thousands of maple bats shatter and several players, coaches and fans get whacked by the shards, the commissioner has decided it's finally time to consider banning these potentially deadly weapons. "I watch a lot of games," Selig said. "And I'm concerned.">> Source: <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080519/SPORTS/880135323/1005" target="_blank">http://www.washingtontimes.com...323/1005</a>
