Jump to content


Photo

Proposed Age Change (The second guessing begins......)

Little League Age Change Little League Age Charts

501 replies to this topic

#481 rsnyder6

rsnyder6

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 291 posts

Posted 20 November 2015 - 01:26 PM

"How do you guys feel about the  MJJA 2005's jumping from LA 12 in 2018 to LA 14 in 2019?"

 

    At first  I didn't really see an issue with this. League have so much flexibility at this age with Junior and Senior ball, and the overlapping age ranges, that it didn't seem to make much difference. 

 

   I didn't think about Intermediate age. I suppose a kid could miss their 13 year in that division, is that correct? (Many of the leagues by me don't have Intermediate divisions. We have spoken about it for several years, but the issue always comes down to the fields, cost, room, and permission from the town who owns the fields.)

 

   But if I remember right, these kids could still play two years in Intermediate, and the go into Juniors or Seniors, (if the league has those division). I don't really have knowledge on just how many leagues have Intermediate, etc. It doesn't seem like that big a deal, but maybe there is more to it.

 

> Or the MJJA 1999's playing as a LA 17 in 2018 and being considered 19 in 2019 and not eligible to finish their last Little League season?

   This I also don't know if it effects many kids. I don't know that a lot play at this age from the few months this effects. I'm sure if it is your kid, and they really want to play, it is important, though they will have notice and it does end sometime for everyone.

 

   I think looking at the discussion on LL's Facebook page, seems to my a lot of parents want what they think benefit their kids the most. All the changes can just be pushed down the line. The 2005 grandfathered in, so the 2006 parents all already calling for their kids to be also. So the 2007 parents soon complain, then the 2008, and on and on. What a lot are calling for it the cutoff to be set where it makes their kids among the oldest in a division. Obviously basic math says that can't be true for all kids, (though some don't get that). I can understand that when parents were expecting something to be one way, and it changes, that they could be upset. But they need to look at how it effects every player, not just theirs player. (This boarders on another discussion of two much emphasis on the LLWS, how some advocate they should not be televised -  and though I enjoy watching the games, I think there is some merit to that argument. It is, and really should be, a minor part of LL.) 

 

     It seems that for a number of parents, it is not really the issue of losing a year, but the issue of relative ages. I understand that, my son being among the youngest in his school class. And there is a growing trend of parents holding their children back so the enter kindergarten a year later. (The average age in kindergarten has been rising for years.) Almost everyone my son played with on the LL All-Star teams are only a few months younger, but are a whole grade down from him and so the oldest on the school teams. I'll note for most areas of the country in most cases, the kids are mostly entering later for academic, not sport reasons.

 

"Now, I get that nothing is perfect and that someone can always find something wrong with anything that gets proposed. But I feel like just implementing the age chart for everyone born 2006 and after during the 2018 season insures no one at any level of Little League will not lose a season."

 

     I guess I don't quite understand what you are saying here. I don't see how that works. (I also guess I don't understand the "loosing a season" argument, except as it pertains to losing a last year in Majors, which as already been fixed.)



#482 Mike_Hirschman

Mike_Hirschman

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,325 posts
  • LocationWinston-Salem, NC

Posted 20 November 2015 - 02:12 PM

Addressing this without the consideration of the "dropoff" factor and keeping to strictly the written rules and policies...

 

I am sure someone will complain about missing their 13 season in Intermediate.

 

Parents that are complaining for more grandfathering don't understand the issue that was at hand. The issue was kids losing a year of eligibility. No one else has lost a year of eligibility of great impact... being jumped from a 5 year old to a 7 year old is NOT an impact.  Having a 6-2, 185 lbs. 13 year old hit a laser off their kid's forehead has a great impact.

 

Time for everyone to move on from the issue, which has been resolved the best it can be.


  • rsnyder6 and Plesh like this

#483 Guest_Smart_*

Guest_Smart_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 November 2015 - 02:24 PM

The original post is above...

 

Don't get me wrong, our state has "underage" state tournaments... and it is completely against my personal beliefs. (And others around the state who refuse to hold tournaments to send representatives to it.) I personally believe that there should be nothing before the 9-10 and that we should adjust the structure so that 9-10 goes to the state level (no special games beyond it), 10-11 goes to the regional level and then 11-12 is the first opportunity for a world series. But I don't think we will ever get that animal back in the cage.

 

The original point being made was that these kids were being slighted because they have been all-stars since they were age 7 and won't have a 12-year-old tournament season. As stated above, they were all-stars at age 7, they were immediately converted into a travel team. Further, there was an accusation of hypocrisy against those "running Little League."

 

In my 30 years as a volunteer in the program, there has NEVER been a subject more contentious than this one. That includes head-first slide, on deck circle, pitch count, bat standards... all of them great topics of debate and none of them were more widely debated, disputed and argued than this one. So yes, when you started calling people hypocritical because there was a chance that your child would be slighted and you make the accusation that it is "no big deal" to those making the decisions... yep, I am going to be fairly angry about it.

 

And I am going to guess that in your Little League experience, you never knew why we don't have an on-deck circle or a rule prohibiting head-first slides... rather you just chose to be critical of the organization.

 


The original post is above...

 

Don't get me wrong, our state has "underage" state tournaments... and it is completely against my personal beliefs. (And others around the state who refuse to hold tournaments to send representatives to it.) I personally believe that there should be nothing before the 9-10 and that we should adjust the structure so that 9-10 goes to the state level (no special games beyond it), 10-11 goes to the regional level and then 11-12 is the first opportunity for a world series. But I don't think we will ever get that animal back in the cage.

 

The original point being made was that these kids were being slighted because they have been all-stars since they were age 7 and won't have a 12-year-old tournament season. As stated above, they were all-stars at age 7, they were immediately converted into a travel team. Further, there was an accusation of hypocrisy against those "running Little League."

 

In my 30 years as a volunteer in the program, there has NEVER been a subject more contentious than this one. That includes head-first slide, on deck circle, pitch count, bat standards... all of them great topics of debate and none of them were more widely debated, disputed and argued than this one. So yes, when you started calling people hypocritical because there was a chance that your child would be slighted and you make the accusation that it is "no big deal" to those making the decisions... yep, I am going to be fairly angry about it.

 

And I am going to guess that in your Little League experience, you never knew why we don't have an on-deck circle or a rule prohibiting head-first slides... rather you just chose to be critical of the organization.

 

The original post is above...

 

Don't get me wrong, our state has "underage" state tournaments... and it is completely against my personal beliefs. (And others around the state who refuse to hold tournaments to send representatives to it.) I personally believe that there should be nothing before the 9-10 and that we should adjust the structure so that 9-10 goes to the state level (no special games beyond it), 10-11 goes to the regional level and then 11-12 is the first opportunity for a world series. But I don't think we will ever get that animal back in the cage.

 

The original point being made was that these kids were being slighted because they have been all-stars since they were age 7 and won't have a 12-year-old tournament season. As stated above, they were all-stars at age 7, they were immediately converted into a travel team. Further, there was an accusation of hypocrisy against those "running Little League."

 

In my 30 years as a volunteer in the program, there has NEVER been a subject more contentious than this one. That includes head-first slide, on deck circle, pitch count, bat standards... all of them great topics of debate and none of them were more widely debated, disputed and argued than this one. So yes, when you started calling people hypocritical because there was a chance that your child would be slighted and you make the accusation that it is "no big deal" to those making the decisions... yep, I am going to be fairly angry about it.

 

And I am going to guess that in your Little League experience, you never knew why we don't have an on-deck circle or a rule prohibiting head-first slides... rather you just chose to be critical of the organization.

"Rather you just chose to be critical of the organization."  What?  You are now comparing rules regarding child safety (which I agree with and I am not critical of) to the idea of a 7 year old all star team?  Mike, Im sorry, I really dont follow your logic.  I respect the fact that you have been involved in little league for 30+ years and the work you have done...but you and I have either had a miscommunication in our messages here or I am just not understanding where you are coming from.  Yes, I did not want my kid, as well as the other kids that I coach, to miss a complete season of baseball.  If that makes me a bad person, so be it.  My league and my area goes from Little League to Pony...no intermediate or anything like that.  And yes...I wanted this group of kids to have the opportunity to make a run at states and bring back a banner or two for them and our organization.  Again...bad person?  Ok.  Furthermore, the Pony league that our area plays in is not an "and under" league...which means that my kids really would have struggled finding a place to play their 12 year old season.  And yes...I do find it hypocritical of Little League that they were going to exclude thousands of kids from playing baseball with their history of inclusion.  That stance has nothing to do with my all star team or my kids...that is a stance that I believe is widely accepted in the Little League community.  A "slight" to my kid?  Yes...but also to THOUSANDS of other kids.  If you dont understand that, then Im sorry, I cant help you.

 

Let me clarify the "7 year old all star team" statement that you appear to have such an issue with.  We play coach pitch at 7 years old.  We have 4-5 teams in our little league, each with 11 players roughly.  Of those kids, a group of 12-14 expressed interest in playing in a couple of "all star tournaments" that were being hosted by neighboring organizations.  The leauge, coaches, kids, and parents all wanted to participate.  As it so happens, those 12-14 were probably most of the top kids in our league at that age.  And, I will disagree with you, some 7 year olds are better and more focused than others.  Some of them do want to be there. We played in a couple tournaments.  It was fun.  The kids enjoyed it.  I dont see the problem with that?  I really, truly dont.  If you do, Im sorry.  I also dont see how you can in any way, shape, or form, compare that to being as detrimental to a kid as a head first slide, a pitch count, bat size, etc.  That, to me, is an assanign comparison.

 

Please explain to me what is "contentious" about a group of kids playing in tournaments? 



#484 rsnyder6

rsnyder6

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 291 posts

Posted 20 November 2015 - 02:42 PM

Parents that are complaining for more grandfathering don't understand the issue that was at hand. The issue was kids losing a year of eligibility. No one else has lost a year of eligibility of great impact... being jumped from a 5 year old to a 7 year old is NOT an impact.  Having a 6-2, 185 lbs. 13 year old hit a laser off their kid's forehead has a great impact.

 

Time for everyone to move on from the issue, which has been resolved the best it can be.

 

I agree about the impact. I have already heard from a parent of a six year old that somehow their child was being robbed and we better fix it. (She didn't have a clue as to what the changes really where, and ‚ÄčI talked her off the ledge, but there will be a few that will complain.)


  • Plesh likes this

#485 Plesh

Plesh

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 976 posts
  • LocationNorthern New Jersey

Posted 20 November 2015 - 03:19 PM

There will always be people who complain about everything and anything.
It's just about sifting through and finding valid ones.
  • rsnyder6 likes this

#486 Lou Barbieri

Lou Barbieri

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 2,997 posts
  • LocationThe Villages, Florida

Posted 20 November 2015 - 07:04 PM

Guest_Smart: Don't want to hijack this post and I have no problem if a group of LL players/parents want to get together and play in a local tournament or two hosted by other local organizations but it needs to be done "outside" of the local LL.
That is, it can't be sponsored by, paid for, equipment/uniforms supplied by, etc..., the local LL.
Also, LL insurance is not in effect for such games.

That said, LL teams can play against non-LL teams with approval (Special Games Request Non-LL Teams).
  • rsnyder6 likes this

#487 Mike_Hirschman

Mike_Hirschman

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,325 posts
  • LocationWinston-Salem, NC

Posted 22 November 2015 - 02:29 PM

If you don't understand the comparison, then you don't understand being an administrator. You said no one cared and just dismissed it. Administrators who are in the program for ALL of the kids, not just their own, care about ALL of the rule changes.

 

I haven't been around a Big League Baseball game in over a decade and can count on two hands how many in my 30 years. But guess what? I ask enough questions and care enough about the program to have a somewhat informed opinion on a current proposed rule change that would allow 19-year-olds to play Big League baseball. Because who knows when my district might wind up with a charter in the program.

 

The issues of on-deck, head-first, pitch count have been widely criticized for a number of years by parents wanting "real baseball". So yes, by constant adult criticism and some even saying they won't play Little League because of it, there are correlations and comparisons. And yes, those are constantly on the board as "hot topics" even more than a decade after the on-deck circle was removed... which occurred because the third adult coach that had finally been written into the rules didn't pay enough attention and it was costing $500 every time a kid lost a tooth.

 

If 7-year-olds want to play in a special games event, that's up to a local league to decide. It wouldn't ever get my board vote. But to call them all-stars or make it into a select atmosphere is absurd in my opinion... and it continues to contribute to those wanting to run off and start their own travel teams.


  • DCBaseball, rsnyder6 and Plesh like this

#488 B_Hanlon

B_Hanlon

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 623 posts
  • LocationPomfret Center, CT

Posted 24 November 2015 - 02:39 AM

Eastern Region just held their Annual DA Clinic this past weekend and the age "Grandfather" issue was officially rolled out with emphasis that this latest revision is Final.
The age change has been a giant cluster%{* and they want to get it behind them.
If they were to continue to grandfather all kids in Little League it would linger until 2022.
  • Plesh likes this

#489 Guest_Mflema26_*

Guest_Mflema26_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 November 2015 - 04:55 AM

I understand that with any change there is resistance. I think this could have been smoother with a little bit more transparency. If prior to the 2012 International Congress, they had said the reason that the change was requested was so that no player in the World Series would have a chronological age of 13, then we would have come to the conclusion of having the cut off date after the latest dates for the WS would be a no brainer. But my documentation said (prior to Congress) the reason was to be inline with all of the other youth baseball programs. Now they are saying that parents have requested for a "younger" program, which is completely opposite of what parents are doing with their children in the school systems. They should have just been upfront to begin with. Additionally, lets just say exactly what will happen. No players will miss a year of eligibility for LL Majors. With the latest change, there will be a group of players who skipped their 8 yr old year repeating their 9 yr old year. Players born between May thru Aug, 2006, did miss a year of Minor eligibility, but they will not miss anymore years. Those born between May thru Aug, 2005, will play their 12 yr old year, but then will skip their 13 yr old year in 2019. Leagues with Intermediate should prepare that 2018 will have only 2/3s of the players as 4 months birthdays will be "grandfathered" as 12s, and they should also be prepared to have more Major teams that season, as 16 months will be considered 12 YO. 2019 will have us back to where 12 months will make up each age. I would continued the press release with a sorry for any inconvenience, but in order to maintain the traditions of 11 and 12 YOs in the WS, we must make this change. Clear, clean, appeal to the long tradition of the ages in the WS, and parents would be able to adjust. I also recommend that they make the announcement, and start the change a year later. In my 37 yrs in LL, giving everyone a chance to digest things, make it a lot easier.

Now as administrators, we have to lower the rhetoric, and find the silver lining. I personally do not understand just taking the method that they are doing this out until it is past the 18 yo, (or 19 YO, if the new change is passed) and as each age has less and less players, it will become less and less a discussion point. Heck, if they had stretched this out to just past the junior age, I don't think there would have been any hue and cry. We all know how our parent participation drops off so much past the age of 15. IMHO, Happy Turkey day all!

#490 Mike_Hirschman

Mike_Hirschman

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,325 posts
  • LocationWinston-Salem, NC

Posted 24 November 2015 - 01:54 PM

There is no doubt that folks on The Hill tried to "spin" this at the outset... and didn't do a good job. We have documented that on this forum. It began with compliance with an international date... which many of us look at with raised eyebrows. Or maybe I should say rolled eyes.

 

Completely agree that we have to lower the rhetoric and move on. If there is a parent out there that was told there was a chance the entire thing would be rescinded, they were talking to someone that was CLUELESS. The compromise that has been reached was (and is) the best scenario possible.

 

Glad I am not the only one that has the ability to see things through "experienced bi-focals"... ;-)



#491 Jeremy

Jeremy

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  • Administrators
  • 1,322 posts
  • LocationNorthern California

Posted 24 November 2015 - 07:25 PM

So why hasn't softballs date changed....during the LLWS kids can be 13 years 8 months.....and obviously they don't care about kids in the same grade being the same league age for softball.....I personally like the date because it's simple to figure out LA without looking at the chart and I see little safty issue because pitchers only get moved back 3' at higher levels but I do have a LA 11 daughter who is on the young and small side of her LA and is outweighed by double by some of the LA 12 girls....Defending the postion scares me a bit, she always wears a mask, made it a league bylaw all pitchers and F5s wear mask.

#492 B_Hanlon

B_Hanlon

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 623 posts
  • LocationPomfret Center, CT

Posted 24 November 2015 - 08:10 PM

I believe that was asked and the answer was that LL follows suit with regards to softball ages (As of January 1st). There was also a general feeling that other baseball organizations will probably follow LL once they are convinced LL has put this issue to rest.   


  • Jeremy likes this

#493 Plesh

Plesh

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 976 posts
  • LocationNorthern New Jersey

Posted 24 November 2015 - 08:17 PM

I'm hoping USA Baseball follows LL's new age cutoff date so that everyone is on the same page.



#494 rsnyder6

rsnyder6

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 291 posts

Posted 24 November 2015 - 09:44 PM

Completely agree that we have to lower the rhetoric and move on.

 

If there is a parent out there that was told there was a chance the entire thing would be rescinded, they were talking to someone that was CLUELESS. The compromise that has been reached was (and is) the best scenario possible.

 

 

     I think most of us that have to deal with administering a league and dealing with stakeholders agreeing with toning down the rhetoric. 

 

     Though to many of us it does seem like we didn't get here by the best path, a lot of us do agree what we have ended up is the best choice.

     Unfortunately there is lingering and new misinformation out their which doesn't help matters. And there are a few folks who either just want to call foul, or are trying to manipulate this for their own benefit. But then there always are a few. :(

 

      So, I'm looking forward to returning to telling folks you can't have an on-deck batter, (or 2 or 3 or more), the head-first slide has not been allowed LL in years, (the answer to, "When did you change that rule?"), and pitch-count limits are mandatory, not suggested. :)



#495 Mike_Hirschman

Mike_Hirschman

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,325 posts
  • LocationWinston-Salem, NC

Posted 24 November 2015 - 10:01 PM

Softball has been universal for a while and hasn't been the subject of "tinkering" around... it just got confusing when baseball and softball became similar but different on the first set of changes (before the Aug. 31 change...).



#496 Jeremy

Jeremy

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  • Administrators
  • 1,322 posts
  • LocationNorthern California

Posted 24 November 2015 - 11:34 PM

Last years dates were actually very easy....softball was the age you are at the start of the year and baseball was the age you'll turn during the year....didn't need the age chart at all last year for LA 9 and under in baseball or any softball players regardless of age.

I just don't buy the whole playing with kids in your own grade part of this because it doesn't sound like they care about that at all for softball.

But like I said already, I see no need for the change in softball and think they get 13's off the field for the LLWS change was a joke for baseball. I have not once seen any numbers to support it was a safety issue.

#497 kylejt

kylejt

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 11 January 2016 - 03:43 AM

Here's what Williamsport can't tell you: This is a safety issue.

 

Dialing the age back down will decrease numbers, as we all know kids bail at 13. WP went the other way a few years back, hoping to keep more kids in. Then they gave us INT, which many leagues and districts bastardized by making that their Majors division, leaving out the 13 year olds, and making WP just scream.

 

LIke others have said, the dopey excuse of having boys play with their classmates (as it was orginally intended, many many years ago) just doesn't fly. As for softball, LL was a late comer, and went along with 1 Jan, date others had instituted.

 

So, if WP is willing to lose number$, what other reason, other than safety, is there? (None).



#498 amutz

amutz

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 864 posts
  • LocationNorCal

Posted 11 January 2016 - 11:29 PM

Quality of the game is a relevant issue.
The new bat rule and younger players should lower the home run rate, which has significantly degraded the quality of games played.
Home run derby can be fun too, but its not baseball.

#499 Lou Barbieri

Lou Barbieri

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 2,997 posts
  • LocationThe Villages, Florida

Posted 12 January 2016 - 12:39 AM

I believe the whole age change was driven by ESPN comments on 13 year olds playing in the 11-12 World Series.
The age cut-off date was changed so that that wouldn't happen in the future.

The date change to December 31 assured no 13s in the LLWS but it created problems with the May-December kids.
Moving it to August 31 still assures no 13s in the WS and resolves most of the May-December problem.

Not sure about the LLWS Home Run Derby, you have to realize these are the best players so HRs are bound to happen.
That said, with younger players there should be fewer and probably not quite as monstrous.

#500 Mike_Hirschman

Mike_Hirschman

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,325 posts
  • LocationWinston-Salem, NC

Posted 13 January 2016 - 02:06 PM

You have to understand this issue from a historical aspect...

 

We made the first date change because everyone under USA Baseball was going to move to a universal date. Then people jumped off the ship. Now the kids were too big for the diamond.

 

Composite bats became the norm and the bats continued to get hotter. 

 

We made the outfields bigger in Williamsport and eventually at the regional centers to keep more balls in play. Steve called it "created more doubles in the gap to left and right center."

 

As work was still on-going to move towards USABats, LL decided to try to make the kids smaller. Yes, it was disguised as something regarding international dates, but most of us who has been around long enough knew what it truly was. It wasn't just about the bats... it was also about kids standing 6-3 and throwing close to 80. When 12 kids are batting and only three can get around on them and the three that actually can get around on them are using catapults for bats, the game isn't fun. 

 

Now, we finally have most organizations on board for USABats. And we will eventually get to smaller kids. And INT might be on solid footing and those games might be more fun, too, by then. Because if you think LLWS games are HR derby, go to a state tournament in INT and watch them hit about 16 home runs a game with big barrel bats that are "drop-12."

 

People that are concerned only about their individual child in most instances don't understand the evolution of it. Much of this is all tied together in a cause-effect relationship.  





Reply to this topic



  



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Little League Age Change, Little League Age Charts

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users