Baseball final forfeited because of girl at second base

[danarhea]

The Arizona Charter Athletic Association state championship baseball game wasn't played Thursday night because Mesa Prep's second baseman is a girl.

Paige Sultzbach, a freshman, is playing baseball because her high school doesn't offer girls softball. But the school Mesa Prep was to face in the final, Our Lady of Sorrows Academy, said its boys would not compete against a team with a girl and forfeited the game - and the state title - to Mesa Prep.

Yes, once again, the kids' fun is ruined because of political and ideological douchebaggery. The school that forfeited their chance at the title is appropriately named too. They are a sorry bunch of douchebags, causing sorrow like that to the kids who go there.

Yes, girls, Jesus loves you too. Now go make me a damn sammich. :mrgreen:

Article is here.

 

[Goshin]

Pretty silly in this day and age. All that hooyah over one girl?

 

[Morality Games]

Okay then. They lost. The end.

 

[The Mark]

Title is wrong.

Should read: Baseball final forfeited because Mesa Prep team scared of cooties.


:lamo

 

[notquiteright]

I gotta love the name of the 'fraidy cat team, "Our Lady of Sorrows" ya just have to laugh at Gawd's sense of humor...

The school is sort of odd, belonged to an offshoot of the Catholic Church, the Society of Pius X which formed in 1970 to protest the reforms in 1965, it has a love/hate relationship with the Mother Church.

Apparently boys and girls must be educated separately, though didn't know that meant sports competition. Have to wonder at times...

 

[Top Cat]

Yes, once again, the kids' fun is ruined because of political and ideological douchebaggery. The school that forfeited their chance at the title is appropriately named too. They are a sorry bunch of douchebags, causing sorrow like that to the kids who go there.

Yes, girls, Jesus loves you too. Now go make me a damn sammich. :mrgreen:

Article is here.

What a bunch of ******s.

 

[DiAnna]

Title is wrong.

Should read: Baseball final forfeited because Mesa Prep team scared of cooties.


:lamo

Except Mesa Prep didn't forfeit. They were the team with the girl at second base.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

"As a Catholic school, we promote the ideal of forming and educating boys and girls separately during the adolescent years, especially in physical education,”

The Catholic Religion - condoning gender bias and sexism from day-1. :roll: Go figure. Maybe they shouldn't play non-religious schools at all, eh? :roll:

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

I gotta love the name of the 'fraidy cat team, "Our Lady of Sorrows" ya just have to laugh at Gawd's sense of humor...

The school is sort of odd, belonged to an offshoot of the Catholic Church, the Society of Pius X which formed in 1970 to protest the reforms in 1965, it has a love/hate relationship with the Mother Church.

Apparently boys and girls must be educated separately, though didn't know that meant sports competition. Have to wonder at times...

I'm pretty sure God had nothing to do with this. IMO this is a sad commentary from the school or church leadership. If the HS state athletic association allows it, then all participating schools should accept the reality that girls may participate.

I don't even agree with this:

"I respect their views, but it's a bit out of the 18th century," Amy Arnold, Mesa Prep's athletic director, told the Republic.

Mesa Prep and Our Lady of Sorrows played twice during the regular season, but Sultzbach sat out, as they were away games for her team.

“It was on their field, and I felt the need to respect their rules,” she told KTVK.

The female athlete should have had the opportunity to participate in the previous two meetings.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I'm sick of that - the "I respect their views" junk . . . no - we do not have to respect their blatant and offensive sexism.

 

[StillBallin75]

I wish I could get to second base with a girl....

 

[The Mark]

Except Mesa Prep didn't forfeit. They were the team with the girl at second base.

I got it backwards then. /facepalm :doh:

 

[Higgins86]

I refused to play a rugby match against a team because they had a couple of girls, we didnt do it out of spite but more out of safety concerns.

 

[justabubba]

I refused to play a rugby match against a team because they had a couple of girls, we didnt do it out of spite but more out of safety concerns.

so, it would appear y'all were afraid those rugby playing gals would kick your ass
man up

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I refused to play a rugby match against a team because they had a couple of girls, we didnt do it out of spite but more out of safety concerns.

Such stupidity.

If a girl has been able to qualify to join the team.
Stayed on the team.
Practiced with the team.
Won with the team.
Lost with the team.

I'm sure she can play against you on your team.

It's not like you were 10x's bigger than all the guys on their team that they practiced and trained with - don't be so stupid! It wasn't safety: it was just pure sexism and fear of cooties :roll: Don't lie and pretend like it was anything BUT that.

I've never heard of a guy say "I was 10x's bigger than the smallest guy on their team - so I didn't play because I didn't want to hurt him" :roll:

I think - when it comes to sports - a driving fear behind the stereotypical 'alpha male' is that he doesn't want to risk *losing* to a girl and would rather forfeit and just not play the game at all. . . can't have that! The personal disgust and shame would be enough to eat you up. :roll:

I guess that's a 'strength' to the alpha-male types, eh?

 

[Higgins86]

Such stupidity.

If a girl has been able to qualify to join the team.
Stayed on the team.
Practiced with the team.
Won with the team.
Lost with the team.

I'm sure she can play against you on your team.

It's not like you were 10x's bigger than all the guys on their team that they practiced and trained with - don't be so stupid! It wasn't safety: it was just pure sexism and fear of cooties :roll:

these were not big strong girls and if they had engaged in contact with some of us they would of got hurt. We were the best rugby side in the county and the school we were playing had not won a game in 2 years, im 6ft 3 and about 235 and they could not of been taller than 5ft 6 and weighed about 120. It was not sexism it was def safety because they would of got hurt.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

these were not big strong girls and if they had engaged in contact with some of us they would of got hurt. We were the best rugby side in the county and the school we were playing had not won a game in 2 years, im 6ft 3 and about 235 and they could not of been taller than 5ft 6 and weighed about 120. It was not sexism it was def safety because they would of got hurt.

It's RUGBY - it's ALL about getting hurt. IT'S ****ING RUGBY. Don't pretend like all of a sudden you realize someone can get slaughtered on the field and run over! That's the whole POINT of the SPORT! It's unprotected football - wow - just wow! Every can get hurt - YOU could have gotten seriously hurt (and you probably DID) HAH! The silliness of it all!

How would you know if they weren't big strong and tough enough to play, anyway? You didn't play against them. Maybe they were superior in the game and you just had no clue?

I'm 5' tall - I've been 5' tall since I was 11. . . don't smarmy up to me and tell me I'm not capable of playing a sport or anything else for that matter . . . I think I know what I'm talking about.

My children have ALL been involved in a LOT of team sports and SIZE doesn't mean a damn thing - in fact - some of the little guys that are petit do GREAT because they're faster, less weight to muscle around and can slip through a line of defense. . . my son was awesome in football - the best little bearcrawler EVER.

So just stop before you continue - you obviously have no clue because you haven't played against a girl who was qualified in any sport!

 

[Higgins86]

It's RUGBY - it's ALL about getting hurt. IT'S ****ING RUGBY. Don't pretend like all of a sudden you realize someone can get slaughtered on the field and run over! That's the whole POINT of the SPORT! It's unprotected football - wow - just wow!

How would you know if they weren't big strong and tough enough to play? You didn't play against them.

I'm 5' tall - I've been 5' tall since I was 11. . . don't smarmy up to me and tell me I'm not capable of playing a sport or anything else for that matter . . . I think I know what I'm talking about.

My children have ALL been involved in a LOT of team sports and SIZE doesn't mean a damn thing - in fact - some of the little guys that are petit do GREAT because they're faster, less weight to muscle around and can slip through a line of defense.

So just stop before you continue - you obviously have no clue because you haven't played against a girl who was qualified in any sport!

Men on a whole are stronger and faster its just a fact, take a look at the standard of any Womens sport and then compare it to the Mens. Rugby is not about getting hurt and the Refs make it very clear that dangerous play is not allowed and that includes teams who have no idea what they are doing. Call me what you want but I think its pretty obvious that men should play with men and women should play with women

 

[Mathematician]

Watch some chick become the undisputed heavyweight champion by forfeit.

"I ain't hittin' no girl, man!"

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Men on a whole are stronger and faster its just a fact, take a look at the standard of any Womens sport and then compare it to the Mens. Rugby is not about getting hurt and the Refs make it very clear that dangerous play is not allowed and that includes teams who have no idea what they are doing. Call me what you want but I think its pretty obvious that men should play with men and women should play with women

Sports
Are
Dangerous

You can pretend that's not true: but they are. They are inherently dangerous by nature and regulations/rules/fines/penalties are only to punish and minimize excess and intentional duress . . . but that does not undermine the fact that sports are dangerous.

Seriously - honestly - if a 'little-guy' was qualified to be on the team and he looked smaller and weaker would you have quit for his safety, too - nevermind that he qualified and obviously could play the game?

No? didn't think so . . . so 'point' fail . . . it's not about potential fragility because men can be small or less physically advanced, too - or infirmed - or have weak knees and hidden injuries - it's about gender stereotypes - your fear of cooties - and nothing more.

To this in particular

Men on a whole are stronger and faster its just a fact, take a look at the standard of any Womens sport and then compare it to the Mens.

If there's a 'generally speaking' and 'men as a whole' then that means there are 'exceptions to the rule' and there are some girls out there who can rival - physically in stature and strength - any man. Are there not? Of course there are - they can be bigger than men, more physically fit, stronger, faster - all that. Was this the case with these females on the rugby team? Maybe they were MORE than qualified, eh that some of the guys on their team, eh? Maybe they had such serious ability and body mass it'd knock your socks off (you don't know, though, because you didn't play them).

You said it yourself - women's 'teams' have different requirements . . . well if a woman is play on a man's team what does that tell you? Tells me she likely earned it like all the other guys - don't pretend like they were willing to weaken their entire team's strength and abilty to win games by bringing on some fragile little girlfriends. You KNOW that's not the case.

Case closed.

 

[Higgins86]

Sports
Are
Dangerous

You can pretend that's not true: but they are. They are inherently dangerous by nature and regulations/rules/fines/penalties are only to punish and minimize excess and intentional duress . . . but that does not undermine the fact that sports are dangerous.

Seriously - honestly - if a 'little-guy' was qualified to be on the team and he looked smaller and weaker would you have quit for his safety, too - nevermind that he qualified and obviously could play the game?

No? didn't think so . . . so 'point' fail . . . it's not about potential fragility because men can be small or less physically advanced, too - or infirmed - or have weak knees and hidden injuries - it's about gender stereotypes - your fear of cooties - and nothing more.

no a small weak kid would not of been on the team we were a good team. This is the main problem with sport and schools now there is this belief that everyone should play in high school even if your small and weak or just bad at the sport. If your bad at Maths you would study in the bottom class but yet if your bad at sport you should still play with the bigger, stronger and more talented guys? Plus like you said sports are dangerous so why make them more dangerous by letting teenage girls play with teenage boys?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

no a small weak kid would not of been on the team we were a good team. This is the main problem with sport and schools now there is this belief that everyone should play in high school even if your small and weak or just bad at the sport. If your bad at Maths would study in the bottom class but yet if your bad at sport you should stil play with the bigger, stronger and more talented guys? Plus like you said sports are dangerous so why make them more dangerous by letting teenage girls play with teenage boys?

Ah - so your assuming that they were weaker and were let on the team anyway even though they couldn't play as well.

Well - if you had played them then you'd be able to speak from a personal experience and affirm your theory then, hmm.

You developed your theory first - failed to test it out - and now are speaking as if it's lab-tested. No dear - it doesn't work that way.

 

[Higgins86]

Ah - so your assuming that they were weaker and were let on the team anyway even though they couldn't play as well.

Well - if you had played them then you'd be able to speak from a personal experience and affirm your theory then, hmm.

You developed your theory first - failed to test it out - and now are speaking as if it's lab-tested. No dear - it doesn't work that way.

no we based it on the fact we had played them 4 weeks prior and they had no girls and now suddenley they had girls and no subs to boot! I didnt have to play 2 small girls to know that if I had ran full pace at them they would of been hurt, like I said its basic biology.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

no we based it on the fact we had played them 4 weeks prior and they had no girls and now suddenley they had girls and no subs to boot! I didnt have to play 2 small girls to know that if I had ran full pace at them they would of been hurt, like I said its basic biology.

No - it's just typical. . . enough said.

 

[Higgins86]

No - it's just typical. . . enough said.

so men are not as a whole stronger, bigger and faster?