News Page

Common sense in short supply in these games

Guidelines must be consistent
Whoever said "Boys will be boys" never had a child play sports in the 1990s.

Crossing gender lines in sports is becoming almost as fashionable as
dressing casual in the workplace, sipping cosmopolitans or, worse, "Who Let
The Dogs Out." On Wednesday, Little League struck back when it announced
boys could no longer play girls softball. A boys softball division for all
age groups starts in 2001.

Did I miss something? Are boys 5 to 18 clamoring to play softball when
baseball is available?

Not according to the numbers. Little League guesses that last year 500 to
1,000 boys played softball, a sport established as the girls' equivalent of
baseball. That's enough to fill 41 to 83 teams, ages 5 to 18, throughout the
world.

Hoo-wee. Lotta interest there.

We must interpret this legislation for what it is: a double standard when it
comes to girls participating on boys teams, and boys playing on girls teams.

The standard should be simple. If a child wants to play a sport that isn't
available in his/her gender, and has to cross gender lines to do so, it
should be OK. If the rules state otherwise, they must be the same for
everyone.

Little League received criticism last summer when five boys from Arizona
played on a softball team that won the World Series. Three games, including
the championship, were forfeited by all-girls teams that cited injury
concerns.

So Little League has cowered to the criticism despite the logistical
problems with numbers. Little League spokesman Lance Van Auken said the
number of boys playing will increase with a concerted effort to recruit
boys.

But the same effort isn't being put into a girls baseball league. Girls will
continue to play with boys.

This issue goes beyond Little League. Because schools don't offer girls
football, girls wrestling and boys field hockey, gender mixing has become
more popular recently.

Numerous field hockey coaches have said they don't want boys playing field
hockey, even those who play for the joy of it. Among their arguments: There
are other opportunities for boys to play sports, so taking a roster spot
from a girl is unfair.

With that in mind, I'm sympathetic toward the fourth-best boys tennis player
at Wyoming Area High School. He didn't play last spring because a girl,
Dominique Cassetori, joined the boys team, played No. 1 singles, won most of
her matches and reached the district quarterfinals.

Cassetori did nothing wrong. Her school doesn't have a girls tennis team, so
she played with the boys. But you can imagine the outcry if a boy did the
same thing in girls tennis.

If you can't, I'll spell it out: A boy would join the team, take a spot from
a girl who wants to play, dominate the competition and finish as one of the
district's top eight participants. The Women's Sports Foundation would rope
off the school and declare it a crime scene.

I understand the concerns. The chances of a boy on a girls team causing a
competitive imbalance is greater than the other way around, especially once
children reach the mid-teens.

I understand the history, too. Female athletes went decades without getting
a fair shake. So when they're denied an opportunity to play on boys teams,
they're more likely to earn sympathy.

Here's hoping that court cases, such as one in the early 1990s that banned a
Bethlehem area boy from playing girls field hockey, can be replaced by
common sense. If a boy or girl wants to play a sport that isn't offered in
their gender, let them. Or else draw the line between the two genders, no
exceptions.

Call Fitzhenry at 829-7218 or e-mail markf@leader.net.

-----------------------