Nobody is getting bumped up. Girls are getting the option to go down. All 2010s will still all be eligible to play 14 u next season but so will 09’s born after the cut off.
Nothing is preventing the team from staying together, except players having more choices.
At some point they decided...
If it does not matter why not move it?
A couple of compelling reasons have been made to move, what is the reason not too?
The most compelling reason to move; is school seasons limiting opportunities for those that are a grade younger. Another is limited 18u based upon graduation.
Putting...
Not disputing that always have a gap. The date is not arbitrary, matches start of season. (Varies slightly by org) So you do not have 12 year olds not eligible for 12u. If you are 12 should you not be able to play 12u?
Why not base age on season start vs 4.5 months after?
The new USSSA...
What is the logical reason for Jan 1?
Logical reasons for Sept.1 have been discussed on the thread, yet to see one for Jan 1.
I will add a reason, a 12 year old with Dec birthday is not eligible for 12u fall season. They can be literally 12 at game time and forced to play 14u.
It is a catch but I do not see how wording it in front is safer. Catcher still going to make the play. Never seen a catcher watch a by to avoid obstruction.
I prefer the impede language and catcher does what they want.
The article actually provides proof of an advantage.
“A further cross-sectional study examining muscle strength using a hand grip dynamometer in trans women who had completed an average of 14.1 ± 3.5 years GAHT found that, on average, the muscle strength data of trans women fell below that of...
Are you against Title IX? Women’s sports all together?
Truly do not understand but not wanting to assume. Human vs Human does away with women’s sports.
Just wanted to clarify. Title IX guarantees equal opportunity for women athletes. To achieve this you must have separate arenas for competition.
The exclusive portion of this is Title IX . Title IX is great BTW.
A retired runner is a retired runner. Thus the distinction between the two in the rule book.
A runner has a right to an unoccupied base. If in this case you treat as a runner the then wouldn’t they be safe or out when they reach first?
Before you apply any rule, you must determine what the player going to first is.
Is the player a runner, a batter runner, a batter, or non of them?
IMO, the player is not a runner or batter runner. Applying rules that references them is not correct.