Weepy 5 yo

[Kevin]

My 5 yo son has reached the dreaded milestone of coughing his way out
of going to school. I felt bad for him and bought into it. He ended
up at school, but only after getting an hour break to run some errands
with me before he headed back and I went to work. And I felt bad
about it afterward. In the long run, I don't think I did him any favors.
It's reinforcement. And it's been getting worse lately. He did the
same thing last week.

His eyes well up and get puffy. I had a heart to heart talk with him
about what's going on in his head, but came away more confused than
when I started. He probably doesn't know why he's sad. His teacher
told me he was crying yesterday.

He started tee ball just recently. And he's bored with it. The coach
is better suited teaching 12 year olds like he typically does. (But
the league is short of volunteers ... still happy to have a coach at
all.) He's teaching overhand throwing and overhand catching to kids
who can barely fit their hands into baseball gloves. And /suprisingly/
3 of the 6 players can do the drills with no problems. Who knew. But
my son tears up out of boredom and frustration and just starts the
cool kid cry. (Tears, puffy eyes, but no wailing)

I used 15 minutes out of the 45 minute practice for a pep talk.
And then the whole "cough cough" "can I have a drink of water?" stall
tactics began. Aye, geez, then there was the hang nail incident.
I won't go into that other than to comment that I'm glad it was
a practice.

Can't let him quit. But being gentle doesn't seem to work either.
I don't want him to be emotionally detached. But I want him to be
in control of his emotions. I tried telling him that the only time
to cry is if his dog passes away or he's bleeding all over the place.
He laughed and took the point well. Yet he still can't control his
emotions.

And wisdom to share? Be patient? Actively try to curb this and
point him in the right direction?

Thanks ...

[Tori M.]

> Can't let him quit. But being gentle doesn't seem to work either.
> I don't want him to be emotionally detached. But I want him to be
> in control of his emotions. I tried telling him that the only time
> to cry is if his dog passes away or he's bleeding all over the place.
> He laughed and took the point well. Yet he still can't control his
> emotions.

Why cant you let him quit? isnt there another sport you could do together
that is not borring? I would rather rip out my nails from the roots then to
play t-ball. I always loved playing Basketball though.

Tori

--
Bonnie 3/02
Xavier 10/04

[dragon]

Tori M. wrote:
> > Can't let him quit. But being gentle doesn't seem to work either.
> > I don't want him to be emotionally detached. But I want him to be
> > in control of his emotions. I tried telling him that the only time
> > to cry is if his dog passes away or he's bleeding all over the
place.
> > He laughed and took the point well. Yet he still can't control his
> > emotions.
>
> Why cant you let him quit? isnt there another sport you could do
together
> that is not borring? I would rather rip out my nails from the roots
then to
> play t-ball. I always loved playing Basketball though.
>
> Tori

I agree. Baseball (or T-ball) has got to be uber boring for kids your
son's age. All that sitting around watching someone else play. It's
boring for older kids too, which is why it's not a recommended sport
for kids who need to be up and running and *doing* something. Why not
put him into something where he can actually be playing most of the
time? Basketball is a good idea, or swimming or gymnastics....
anything but baseball!

dragon

[Nan]

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 16:16:39 +0000 (UTC), Kevin >
scribbled:

>And wisdom to share? Be patient? Actively try to curb this and
>point him in the right direction?

Let him quit. I understand the desire to have kids follow-through and
not let a team down, but frankly, at 5 that lesson gets lost.
When my son was 5 he preferred soccer at the YMCA. Lots of kids that
young just don't do well in sports that require patience and
inactivity.
As far as the crying goes.... I think you should just back off and let
him do as he sees fit. He'll learn to control his emotions on his
own.

Nan

[Circe]

"dragon" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Tori M. wrote:
> > > Can't let him quit.
> >
> > Why cant you let him quit? isnt there another sport you could do
> > together that is not borring? I would rather rip out my nails from
> > the roots then to play t-ball. I always loved playing Basketball
though.
>
> I agree. Baseball (or T-ball) has got to be uber boring for kids your
> son's age. All that sitting around watching someone else play. It's
> boring for older kids too, which is why it's not a recommended sport
> for kids who need to be up and running and *doing* something. Why not
> put him into something where he can actually be playing most of the
> time? Basketball is a good idea, or swimming or gymnastics....
> anything but baseball!
>
Also, FWIW, organized team sports are *highly* overrated for the early
elementary school set (K-3 or thereabouts). Some kids in this age range
enjoy team sports, but a lot of them don't, and there really isn't much
benefit to making a kindergartener stick with a team sport if he isn't
enjoying it. To the contrary, there could be a lot of downside--he may hate
t-ball so much that he never wants to try any form of baseball again, even
though five years down the road he might well find baseball a lot of fun.

So, personally, if he's not enjoying it, I'd let him quit. I let my daughter
quit soccer at a similar age (and after she was the one who said she wanted
to do it). It just wasn't worth the struggle, frankly.
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Mr. Congeniality (7), the Diva (5) and the Race Car Fanatic (3 today)

I have PMS and ESP...I'm the bitch who knows everything! (T-shirt slogan)

[Stephanie]

"Kevin" > wrote in message
...
> My 5 yo son has reached the dreaded milestone of coughing his way out
> of going to school. I felt bad for him and bought into it. He ended
> up at school, but only after getting an hour break to run some errands
> with me before he headed back and I went to work. And I felt bad
> about it afterward. In the long run, I don't think I did him any favors.
> It's reinforcement. And it's been getting worse lately. He did the
> same thing last week.
>
> His eyes well up and get puffy. I had a heart to heart talk with him
> about what's going on in his head, but came away more confused than
> when I started. He probably doesn't know why he's sad. His teacher
> told me he was crying yesterday.
>
> He started tee ball just recently. And he's bored with it. The coach
> is better suited teaching 12 year olds like he typically does. (But
> the league is short of volunteers ... still happy to have a coach at
> all.) He's teaching overhand throwing and overhand catching to kids
> who can barely fit their hands into baseball gloves. And /suprisingly/
> 3 of the 6 players can do the drills with no problems. Who knew. But
> my son tears up out of boredom and frustration and just starts the
> cool kid cry. (Tears, puffy eyes, but no wailing)
>
> I used 15 minutes out of the 45 minute practice for a pep talk.
> And then the whole "cough cough" "can I have a drink of water?" stall
> tactics began. Aye, geez, then there was the hang nail incident.
> I won't go into that other than to comment that I'm glad it was
> a practice.
>
> Can't let him quit. But being gentle doesn't seem to work either.
> I don't want him to be emotionally detached. But I want him to be
> in control of his emotions. I tried telling him that the only time
> to cry is if his dog passes away or he's bleeding all over the place.
> He laughed and took the point well. Yet he still can't control his
> emotions.
>
> And wisdom to share? Be patient? Actively try to curb this and
> point him in the right direction?
>
> Thanks ...

Personally, I would not make my kid face whatever deamon is driving him to
avoidance until such time as he could understand what he was feeling and
express it. My son is 4, I do not know if there is a big development leap in
this area in 1/2 a year. But a lot of times he does not *understand* his own
emotions let alone have any capacity to express them.

This tball thing, it sounds like there is something about it that he
dislikes enthusiastically enough to make a deal out of avoiding it. I would
concede to him that if he does not like it he can do something else.

Also, I don't really understand your comments about the only time to cry is
when you dog dies, but I would not expect a 5 yo to always be able to
control their emotions. I think that is learned over time by observing well
modeled control by adults, not by being told to control your emotions. Is
there something wrong with a 5yo crying? I still do it on occaision. And
only experience tells when something is "bad enough" to "warrant" crying.

Those are my thoughts. Good luck.

Stephanie

[Melania]

Stephanie wrote:
> "Kevin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > My 5 yo son has reached the dreaded milestone of coughing his way
out
> > of going to school. I felt bad for him and bought into it. He
ended
> > up at school, but only after getting an hour break to run some
errands
> > with me before he headed back and I went to work. And I felt bad
> > about it afterward. In the long run, I don't think I did him any
favors.
> > It's reinforcement. And it's been getting worse lately. He did
the
> > same thing last week.
> >
> > His eyes well up and get puffy. I had a heart to heart talk with
him
> > about what's going on in his head, but came away more confused than
> > when I started. He probably doesn't know why he's sad. His
teacher
> > told me he was crying yesterday.
> >
> > He started tee ball just recently. And he's bored with it. The
coach
> > is better suited teaching 12 year olds like he typically does.
(But
> > the league is short of volunteers ... still happy to have a coach
at
> > all.) He's teaching overhand throwing and overhand catching to
kids
> > who can barely fit their hands into baseball gloves. And
/suprisingly/
> > 3 of the 6 players can do the drills with no problems. Who knew.
But
> > my son tears up out of boredom and frustration and just starts the
> > cool kid cry. (Tears, puffy eyes, but no wailing)
> >
> > I used 15 minutes out of the 45 minute practice for a pep talk.
> > And then the whole "cough cough" "can I have a drink of water?"
stall
> > tactics began. Aye, geez, then there was the hang nail incident.
> > I won't go into that other than to comment that I'm glad it was
> > a practice.
> >
> > Can't let him quit. But being gentle doesn't seem to work either.
> > I don't want him to be emotionally detached. But I want him to be
> > in control of his emotions. I tried telling him that the only time
> > to cry is if his dog passes away or he's bleeding all over the
place.
> > He laughed and took the point well. Yet he still can't control his
> > emotions.
> >
> > And wisdom to share? Be patient? Actively try to curb this and
> > point him in the right direction?
> >
> > Thanks ...
>
> Personally, I would not make my kid face whatever deamon is driving
him to
> avoidance until such time as he could understand what he was feeling
and
> express it. My son is 4, I do not know if there is a big development
leap in
> this area in 1/2 a year. But a lot of times he does not *understand*
his own
> emotions let alone have any capacity to express them.
>
> This tball thing, it sounds like there is something about it that he
> dislikes enthusiastically enough to make a deal out of avoiding it. I
would
> concede to him that if he does not like it he can do something else.
>
> Also, I don't really understand your comments about the only time to
cry is
> when you dog dies, but I would not expect a 5 yo to always be able to
> control their emotions. I think that is learned over time by
observing well
> modeled control by adults, not by being told to control your
emotions. Is
> there something wrong with a 5yo crying? I still do it on occaision.
And
> only experience tells when something is "bad enough" to "warrant"
crying.

I got the sense that the OP was using exaggeration - "only if your dog
dies or you're bleeding uncontrollably" - to attempt to indicate to the
child that crying when you are emotionally or physically hurt is fine,
but crocodile tears because you're bored or trying to get out of
something, not so much.

I don't know if that tactic works or not, b/c I don't know the child
(and I only have a 2yo, who may cry over something I think is nothing,
but he really feels it is the end of the world!).

Melania
Mom to Joffre (Jan 11, 2003)
and #2 (edd May 21, 2005)
>
> Those are my thoughts. Good luck.
>
> Stephanie

[Banty]

In article . com>, Melania
says...
>
>
>
>
>I got the sense that the OP was using exaggeration - "only if your dog
>dies or you're bleeding uncontrollably" - to attempt to indicate to the
>child that crying when you are emotionally or physically hurt is fine,
>but crocodile tears because you're bored or trying to get out of
>something, not so much.
>
>I don't know if that tactic works or not, b/c I don't know the child
>(and I only have a 2yo, who may cry over something I think is nothing,
>but he really feels it is the end of the world!).
>

I got the sense it was an exaggeration, too. Hopefully he doesn't literally
meant that one shouldn't cry for other reasons. It's about having things in
perspective.

HOWEVER - kids are really concrete in their thinking, and are pretty likely to
take it literally that no dead dog, no blood, no cry.

The other thing is that five really is a tender age for controlling emotions as
you say. The OP should think of it as *moving towards* being able to control
emotions, but there's a lot of development that will have to happen in a little
five year old before much of it really happens.

Hopefully he isn't trying to teach him the "big boys don't cry" suppression of
emotions, though. Some people and kids are naturally more tender-hearted.

- Banty

[Peggy]

"Kevin" > wrote in message
...
> My 5 yo son has reached the dreaded milestone of coughing his way out
> of going to school. I felt bad for him and bought into it. He ended
> up at school, but only after getting an hour break to run some errands
> with me before he headed back and I went to work. And I felt bad
> about it afterward. In the long run, I don't think I did him any favors.
> It's reinforcement. And it's been getting worse lately. He did the
> same thing last week.
>
> His eyes well up and get puffy. I had a heart to heart talk with him
> about what's going on in his head, but came away more confused than
> when I started. He probably doesn't know why he's sad. His teacher
> told me he was crying yesterday.
>
> He started tee ball just recently. And he's bored with it. The coach
> is better suited teaching 12 year olds like he typically does. (But
> the league is short of volunteers ... still happy to have a coach at
> all.) He's teaching overhand throwing and overhand catching to kids
> who can barely fit their hands into baseball gloves. And /suprisingly/
> 3 of the 6 players can do the drills with no problems. Who knew. But
> my son tears up out of boredom and frustration and just starts the
> cool kid cry. (Tears, puffy eyes, but no wailing)

> Can't let him quit.

He HAS to go to school. He doesn't HAVE to play tee-ball. As for crying at
school, don't give in to his tactics. Like you said, you're doing him no
favors. Drop him off, give him a hug, then leave without looking back. You
can feel bad in the car, but don't let him see you feel bad before then.
Eventually he'll catch on that his crocodile tears aren't working. The
sooner, the better. Good luck.
~Peggy

[Stephanie]

"Peggy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > My 5 yo son has reached the dreaded milestone of coughing his way out
> > of going to school. I felt bad for him and bought into it. He ended
> > up at school, but only after getting an hour break to run some errands
> > with me before he headed back and I went to work. And I felt bad
> > about it afterward. In the long run, I don't think I did him any
favors.
> > It's reinforcement. And it's been getting worse lately. He did the
> > same thing last week.
> >
> > His eyes well up and get puffy. I had a heart to heart talk with him
> > about what's going on in his head, but came away more confused than
> > when I started. He probably doesn't know why he's sad. His teacher
> > told me he was crying yesterday.
> >
> > He started tee ball just recently. And he's bored with it. The coach
> > is better suited teaching 12 year olds like he typically does. (But
> > the league is short of volunteers ... still happy to have a coach at
> > all.) He's teaching overhand throwing and overhand catching to kids
> > who can barely fit their hands into baseball gloves. And /suprisingly/
> > 3 of the 6 players can do the drills with no problems. Who knew. But
> > my son tears up out of boredom and frustration and just starts the
> > cool kid cry. (Tears, puffy eyes, but no wailing)
>
> > Can't let him quit.
>
> He HAS to go to school. He doesn't HAVE to play tee-ball. As for crying
at
> school, don't give in to his tactics. Like you said, you're doing him no
> favors. Drop him off, give him a hug, then leave without looking back.
You
> can feel bad in the car, but don't let him see you feel bad before then.
> Eventually he'll catch on that his crocodile tears aren't working. The
> sooner, the better. Good luck.
> ~Peggy
>
>

I concur. Different reaction based on different importance level.

[Nikki]

Banty wrote:

> The other thing is that five really is a tender age for controlling
> emotions as you say. The OP should think of it as *moving towards*
> being able to control emotions, but there's a lot of development that
> will have to happen in a little five year old before much of it
> really happens.

Yes my oldest is 5 and we are in that situation right now. I'm not sure I
always handle it very well so I haven't offered any advice. It is sometimes
a hard line to draw when trying to figure out if this is an 'overwhelmed and
need understanding' type of cry versus the kind I feel I should ignore or
can have reasonable expectations that he should buck up a bit. He is much
more emotional now at 5yo then he was at 4yo. He has so much going on and
he is becoming a lot more aware of things going on around him (emotions,
social cues etc.) that he has to deal with. Those things went largely
unnoticed at 4yo.

--
Nikki

[Banty]

In article >, Nikki says...
>
>Banty wrote:
>
>> The other thing is that five really is a tender age for controlling
>> emotions as you say. The OP should think of it as *moving towards*
>> being able to control emotions, but there's a lot of development that
>> will have to happen in a little five year old before much of it
>> really happens.
>
>Yes my oldest is 5 and we are in that situation right now. I'm not sure I
>always handle it very well so I haven't offered any advice. It is sometimes
>a hard line to draw when trying to figure out if this is an 'overwhelmed and
>need understanding' type of cry versus the kind I feel I should ignore or
>can have reasonable expectations that he should buck up a bit. He is much
>more emotional now at 5yo then he was at 4yo. He has so much going on and
>he is becoming a lot more aware of things going on around him (emotions,
>social cues etc.) that he has to deal with. Those things went largely
>unnoticed at 4yo.
>

For my son, 4 yo. was still very home and mommy-focussed. Even though he was in
daycare - he liked the kids and place and was very social. But as long as his
daycare provider was there, and as long as I'm there otherwise, all else didn't
really matter.

At 5 yo., it was a big change, where he started rather abruptly to get focussed
outside the cocoon. That was when he started caring about who played with whom
and who said what. And really got out in the neighborhood as far as friends,
and running into all that stuff. And getting all the social-interaction bumps
and bruises. So he was more emotional in a sense because his 'world' was a lot
bigger and more complicated suddenly.

He still is a little tender-hearted, but not problematically so (pretty
independant). But five was a big age for him.

Banty

[Amy]

Kevin wrote:
<snip>

I agree with the other posters who said, "Let him quit," but I would
wait until he *starts* using the avoidance behavior again. Then take
him aside and say, "Son, if you don't want to be at t-ball, there is a
more appropriate way of telling me than pretending that you are sick.
Can you guess what it is?" If he says anything along the lines of,
"Being honest," or "Telling you that I don't like it," then say, "Yes!
I would much rather that you tell me honestly how you feel than pretend
to be sick. I'll try to make sure that you enjoy what we do together
for fun, but there are some things that everyone has to do, like school
and church (if that's so in your house), and pretending to be sick
can't get you out of those things. Being honest can't even get you out
of them, because attending is a rule that we have to follow unless we
absolutely can't go..."

If you take this opportunity to teach him how to appropriately ask for
what he needs, rather than to teach him that acting like he's sick gets
him out of things (which is what will happen if you don't address it -
he'll learn that faking illness gets him out of uncomfortable or
undesirable situations), he'll learn a valuable lesson.

Best of luck,
Amy

[Barbara]

Tori M. wrote:
> > Can't let him quit. But being gentle doesn't seem to work either.
> > I don't want him to be emotionally detached. But I want him to be
> > in control of his emotions. I tried telling him that the only time
> > to cry is if his dog passes away or he's bleeding all over the
place.
> > He laughed and took the point well. Yet he still can't control his
> > emotions.
>
> Why cant you let him quit? isnt there another sport you could do
together
> that is not borring? I would rather rip out my nails from the roots
then to
> play t-ball. I always loved playing Basketball though.
>
> Tori
>
If this is a *let's just get together and learn; it doesn't matter who
shows up* kind of a team/league, then I agree, let him quit if it makes
him that unhappy.

If, OTOH, this is an actual *team* that plays actual games then, no,
the child should not be permitted to quit. IMHO, 5 is not too young
for a child to learn that there are certain commitments that we make,
and that people depend upon us when we make those commitments. The
team needs him, even if it's only to make up the proper numbers. If
the child dislikes the sport, he can elect never to play again after he
fulfills his commitment to his teammates. (I'm assuming that he
elected to participate, and that he was not *forced* by his parents.)

One's basketball team has 2 kids who *never* show up for practice, and
come to maybe 1 in every 4 games. It hurts the team when they show up,
since they haven't been learning and growing with their teammates. But
it also hurts when they don't show up; if we have 2 kids sick, we have
to forfeit.

BTW, One is in 2d grade and lives for baseball, like most of his peers.
In kindergarten, he and his friends would have loved to play T-Ball or
softball, but our local league starts in 1st grade. Most of these kids
could throw overhand by that age. It was difficult, but not
impossible, to find a left-handed glove to fit a 5 year old; rightie
gloves that size are ubiquitous. I don't think that kindergarten is at
all too young for T-ball -- in fact, by 1st grade, most of the kids are
way too old for it.

Barbara

[Chookie]

In article . com>,
"Barbara" > wrote:

> If this is a *let's just get together and learn; it doesn't matter who
> shows up* kind of a team/league, then I agree, let him quit if it makes
> him that unhappy.
>
> If, OTOH, this is an actual *team* that plays actual games then, no,
> the child should not be permitted to quit. IMHO, 5 is not too young
> for a child to learn that there are certain commitments that we make,
> and that people depend upon us when we make those commitments. The
> team needs him, even if it's only to make up the proper numbers. If
> the child dislikes the sport, he can elect never to play again after he
> fulfills his commitment to his teammates. (I'm assuming that he
> elected to participate, and that he was not *forced* by his parents.)

Can I suggest that putting a five-year-old in the latter sort of team is
really, really STUPID? And who are the idiots who offer them for that age
group anyway?

As for it being "not too young" to learn about keeping promises, well, that's
fine if the child has much concept of how long the commitment is for -- but
I'm betting they don't, unless there are some mighty intellectual leaps
between 4 and 5yo that I don't know about. It is very, very easy to
overestimate one's own enthusiasm at a much later age than 5yo too (anyone
else join heaps of clubs in their first year of Uni?), so I think it's far too
easy for a child to completely fail to understand that he's making a Capital-C
Commitment.

Then there's the playing of "actual games" -- I'm unfamiliar with T-ball, but
would like to point out:

(a) at this age, the child should be learning basic ball/movement skills and
to enjoy exercise.

(b) most games have rules developed by and for adults, which (when combined
with the new skills) make a full sport difficult to learn. For this reason,
there are child-friendly forms of a number of sports available in Australia

(c) "actual games" smacks to me of a great deal of emphasis on winning, which
is completely inappropriate at this age level, and IME incompatible with (a).

Yes, this rant stems from personal experience. I was pushed into a "fizzy"
class at age 6 (Physical Culture -- something like jazz ballet or eurythmics).
Even though my school teacher told Mum I shouldn't be put into situations
where I'd fail, Mum was worried about my poor motor skills. My guess is that
Mum probably thought she *had* given me a free choice to join in my friends'
fizzy class -- but I doubt that *I* had any understanding that no matter how
much I pleaded, I would be at every single fizzy class for the next six
months. I won the attendance badge, but I can still remember how I hated
Thursdays. That was 29 years ago...

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"In Melbourne there is plenty of vigour and eagerness, but there is
nothing worth being eager or vigorous about."
Francis Adams, The Australians, 1893.

[bizby40]

"Chookie" > wrote in message
...
> In article . com>,
> "Barbara" > wrote:
>
>> If this is a *let's just get together and learn; it doesn't matter who
>> shows up* kind of a team/league, then I agree, let him quit if it makes
>> him that unhappy.
>>
>> If, OTOH, this is an actual *team* that plays actual games then, no,
>> the child should not be permitted to quit. IMHO, 5 is not too young
>> for a child to learn that there are certain commitments that we make,
>> and that people depend upon us when we make those commitments. The
>> team needs him, even if it's only to make up the proper numbers. If
>> the child dislikes the sport, he can elect never to play again after he
>> fulfills his commitment to his teammates. (I'm assuming that he
>> elected to participate, and that he was not *forced* by his parents.)
>
> Can I suggest that putting a five-year-old in the latter sort of team is
> really, really STUPID? And who are the idiots who offer them for that age
> group anyway?
>
> As for it being "not too young" to learn about keeping promises, well,
> that's
> fine if the child has much concept of how long the commitment is for --
> but
> I'm betting they don't, unless there are some mighty intellectual leaps
> between 4 and 5yo that I don't know about. It is very, very easy to
> overestimate one's own enthusiasm at a much later age than 5yo too (anyone
> else join heaps of clubs in their first year of Uni?), so I think it's far
> too
> easy for a child to completely fail to understand that he's making a
> Capital-C
> Commitment.
>
> Then there's the playing of "actual games" -- I'm unfamiliar with T-ball,
> but
> would like to point out:
>
> (a) at this age, the child should be learning basic ball/movement skills
> and
> to enjoy exercise.
>
> (b) most games have rules developed by and for adults, which (when
> combined
> with the new skills) make a full sport difficult to learn. For this
> reason,
> there are child-friendly forms of a number of sports available in
> Australia
>
> (c) "actual games" smacks to me of a great deal of emphasis on winning,
> which
> is completely inappropriate at this age level, and IME incompatible with
> (a).

Can't say for sure about the OPs situation, but generally in America they do
not keep score at T-Ball games. When my son played, they had 3 "innings".
In each inning, the entire roster from each team would bat once. The league
rules did allow for "outs," that is, that if the other team actually managed
to
get the ball to first base before the runner got there, he'd be out and have
to
sit back down again. But even then, it depended on who was the first base
coach. Some of them would let the child run the bases anyway. Oh, and
there was no "3 strikes and you're out" -- the child would swing away at
that
tee until they got a hit.

If there were plenty of kids on the team, quitting might not make a
difference,
but if they are already struggling with getting enough players there, it
could.
They do try to have the kids in the real positions in the field. And again,
I
don't know about the OP, but our sports team for this age generally don't
last longer than 6 to 8 weeks.

I have more experience with soccer. In soccer there is more of a need for
all the kids to show up. At this age, our league groups the kids by school/
area. Since our school is smaller and in an outlying area, we'd often end
up with only 10 kids on our team instead of 12. The "games" (again, no
scoring) would be 4 on 4. If all ten of our kids showed up, we'd have
one alternate per team -- enough to give the kids a bit of a break. But
more often, we'd barely make our 8, and our kids would end up exhausted
running the whole time while the other team had 2 alternates per team
and the kids would be refreshed. Sometimes we coudln't even meet the
8, so we'd end up playing 3 on 3 and the other team would have a lot of
kids sitting around bored.

So scoring and winning weren't the issues, but being their for your team-
mates was. I did make it a rule that if we signed up for something we
had to see it through.

> Yes, this rant stems from personal experience. I was pushed into a
> "fizzy"
> class at age 6 (Physical Culture -- something like jazz ballet or
> eurythmics).
> Even though my school teacher told Mum I shouldn't be put into situations
> where I'd fail, Mum was worried about my poor motor skills. My guess is
> that
> Mum probably thought she *had* given me a free choice to join in my
> friends'
> fizzy class -- but I doubt that *I* had any understanding that no matter
> how
> much I pleaded, I would be at every single fizzy class for the next six
> months. I won the attendance badge, but I can still remember how I hated
> Thursdays. That was 29 years ago...
>
> --
> Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
> (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)
>
> "In Melbourne there is plenty of vigour and eagerness, but there is
> nothing worth being eager or vigorous about."
> Francis Adams, The Australians, 1893.

Bizby

[Rosalie B.]

"bizby40" > wrote:
>"Chookie" > wrote in message
...
>> In article . com>,
>> "Barbara" > wrote:
>>
>>> If this is a *let's just get together and learn; it doesn't matter who
>>> shows up* kind of a team/league, then I agree, let him quit if it makes
>>> him that unhappy.
>>>
>>> If, OTOH, this is an actual *team* that plays actual games then, no,
>>> the child should not be permitted to quit. IMHO, 5 is not too young
>>> for a child to learn that there are certain commitments that we make,
>>> and that people depend upon us when we make those commitments. The
>>> team needs him, even if it's only to make up the proper numbers. If
>>> the child dislikes the sport, he can elect never to play again after he
>>> fulfills his commitment to his teammates. (I'm assuming that he
>>> elected to participate, and that he was not *forced* by his parents.)
>>
>> Can I suggest that putting a five-year-old in the latter sort of team is
>> really, really STUPID? And who are the idiots who offer them for that age
>> group anyway?
>>
>> As for it being "not too young" to learn about keeping promises, well, that's
>> fine if the child has much concept of how long the commitment is for --
>> but I'm betting they don't, unless there are some mighty intellectual leaps
>> between 4 and 5yo that I don't know about. It is very, very easy to
>> overestimate one's own enthusiasm at a much later age than 5yo too (anyone
>> else join heaps of clubs in their first year of Uni?), so I think it's far too
>> easy for a child to completely fail to understand that he's making a
>> Capital-C Commitment.
>>
>> Then there's the playing of "actual games" -- I'm unfamiliar with T-ball,
>> but would like to point out:
>>
>> (a) at this age, the child should be learning basic ball/movement skills
>> and to enjoy exercise.
That's what T-ball does.

>> (b) most games have rules developed by and for adults, which (when
>> combined with the new skills) make a full sport difficult to learn. For this
>> reason, there are child-friendly forms of a number of sports available in
>> Australia
>>
That's what T-ball is

>> (c) "actual games" smacks to me of a great deal of emphasis on winning,
>> which
>> is completely inappropriate at this age level, and IME incompatible with
>> (a).

They don't keep score - except the kids may do it themselves.

>Can't say for sure about the OPs situation, but generally in America they do
>not keep score at T-Ball games. When my son played, they had 3 "innings".
>In each inning, the entire roster from each team would bat once. The league
>rules did allow for "outs," that is, that if the other team actually managed
>to
>get the ball to first base before the runner got there, he'd be out and have

In the beginning, because they can't throw very hard, or catch very
well, they tend to run the ball to the base. So they have to be
gradually weaned away from that tendency.
>to
>sit back down again. But even then, it depended on who was the first base
>coach. Some of them would let the child run the bases anyway. Oh, and
>there was no "3 strikes and you're out" -- the child would swing away at
>that
>tee until they got a hit.

>
>If there were plenty of kids on the team, quitting might not make a difference,
>but if they are already struggling with getting enough players there, it

I've been to several T-ball games with various grandchildren. On two
occasions, one team didn't have enough players, so they just split
some of the players off the larger team to play on the smaller team.
(The players to play on the larger team were asked if they wanted to
volunteer, and some of the volunteers were picked to play on the
smaller team.) It didn't seem like this was uncommon.

On the coach pitch teams, which are first grade age, they are allowed
11 kids on a team, and so two of them sit out each inning when the
team is in the field. The team goes through the roster one time, and
then if there aren't 3 outs, the sides change anyway. The coaches
that pitch are the coaches of the team at bat, and they try very hard
to pitch hittable balls - they don't try to strike their players out.
And in both cases there is a coach at first, and in T-ball there's
also a coach at 3rd to tell the kids what to do if they don't know.

>could.
>They do try to have the kids in the real positions in the field. And again,
>I
>don't know about the OP, but our sports team for this age generally don't
>last longer than 6 to 8 weeks.
>

>I have more experience with soccer. In soccer there is more of a need for
>all the kids to show up. At this age, our league groups the kids by school/
>area. Since our school is smaller and in an outlying area, we'd often end
>up with only 10 kids on our team instead of 12. The "games" (again, no
>scoring) would be 4 on 4. If all ten of our kids showed up, we'd have
>one alternate per team -- enough to give the kids a bit of a break. But
>more often, we'd barely make our 8, and our kids would end up exhausted
>running the whole time while the other team had 2 alternates per team
>and the kids would be refreshed. Sometimes we coudln't even meet the
>8, so we'd end up playing 3 on 3 and the other team would have a lot of
>kids sitting around bored.
>
>So scoring and winning weren't the issues, but being their for your team-
>mates was. I did make it a rule that if we signed up for something we
>had to see it through.
>
My SIL was very into a soccer league where no scores were kept for the
younger kids. They also had refs that were the older kids, and they
had the authorization to throw out a parent who was too aggressive.

The kids were on teams, but I don't think that's the way the teams
were assigned - it was a league based on where you lived, and not
where you went to school.

>> Yes, this rant stems from personal experience. I was pushed into a
>> "fizzy"
>> class at age 6 (Physical Culture -- something like jazz ballet or
>> eurythmics).
>> Even though my school teacher told Mum I shouldn't be put into situations
>> where I'd fail, Mum was worried about my poor motor skills. My guess is
>> that
>> Mum probably thought she *had* given me a free choice to join in my
>> friends'
>> fizzy class -- but I doubt that *I* had any understanding that no matter
>> how
>> much I pleaded, I would be at every single fizzy class for the next six
>> months. I won the attendance badge, but I can still remember how I hated
>> Thursdays. That was 29 years ago...

I don't think this has really so much to do with age. Any age kid
will complain about stuff that they don't like and try to get out of
it. I'm really not sure that making them do it 'for the team' is a
viable choice at that age however.

>>
>> --
>> Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
>> (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)
>>
>> "In Melbourne there is plenty of vigour and eagerness, but there is
>> nothing worth being eager or vigorous about."
>> Francis Adams, The Australians, 1893.
>
>Bizby
>
I can't remember the OP, but some kids are just easily upset. Whether
this is serious or not and whether anything should be done and if so
what is a real question that isn't necessarily related to team sports.

grandma Rosalie

[dragonlady]

In article >,
Chookie > wrote:

> As for it being "not too young" to learn about keeping promises, well, that's
> fine if the child has much concept of how long the commitment is for -- but
> I'm betting they don't, unless there are some mighty intellectual leaps
> between 4 and 5yo that I don't know about. It is very, very easy to
> overestimate one's own enthusiasm at a much later age than 5yo too (anyone
> else join heaps of clubs in their first year of Uni?), so I think it's far
> too
> easy for a child to completely fail to understand that he's making a
> Capital-C
> Commitment.


Then there's the issue of who really made the committment in the first
place. Is this something the child ASKED to do? Something the parents
talked him into doing? Or something the parents signed him up for
without much consultation, either because they thought it would be good
for him or because they thought he'd want to do it?

I HAVE encourged my kids to do things that I thought would be good for
them, and insisted they continue for as long as six weeks -- to give it
a fair shot. However, once they were old enough to join team sports
(and that would NOT have been 5!) I did insist that if they joined a
team they had to finish out the season. And, with theater, I insisted
that once they accept a part, they had to stay through to the last
performance. (I did allow them to reject parts -- but I definately
discouraged it, since a kid turning down a part that they thought was
"too small" was unlikely to get larger parts later. And MY kids would
have never turned down a part that they thought was too BIG.)
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

[dragonlady]

In article >,
"bizby40" > wrote:

> But
> more often, we'd barely make our 8, and our kids would end up exhausted
> running the whole time while the other team had 2 alternates per team
> and the kids would be refreshed. Sometimes we coudln't even meet the
> 8, so we'd end up playing 3 on 3 and the other team would have a lot of
> kids sitting around bored.

When my kids were that young, we only had set "teams" for the practicing
part. Once it came to the "game" part, if one team had more kids than
the other, they'd redistribute kids so that the two sides had the same
number of kids.

It seemed to work out OK.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

[bizby40]

"dragonlady" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "bizby40" > wrote:
>
>> But
>> more often, we'd barely make our 8, and our kids would end up exhausted
>> running the whole time while the other team had 2 alternates per team
>> and the kids would be refreshed. Sometimes we coudln't even meet the
>> 8, so we'd end up playing 3 on 3 and the other team would have a lot of
>> kids sitting around bored.
>
> When my kids were that young, we only had set "teams" for the practicing
> part. Once it came to the "game" part, if one team had more kids than
> the other, they'd redistribute kids so that the two sides had the same
> number of kids.
>
> It seemed to work out OK.

Yeah, until the one time that the kid from the other team who was playing
for
our side started bawling because she wasn't with her team. That was the
last
time we did that.

Bizby

> --
> Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care
>

[Rosalie B.]

"bizby40" > wrote:

>
>"dragonlady" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> "bizby40" > wrote:
>>
>>> But
>>> more often, we'd barely make our 8, and our kids would end up exhausted
>>> running the whole time while the other team had 2 alternates per team
>>> and the kids would be refreshed. Sometimes we coudln't even meet the
>>> 8, so we'd end up playing 3 on 3 and the other team would have a lot of
>>> kids sitting around bored.
>>
>> When my kids were that young, we only had set "teams" for the practicing
>> part. Once it came to the "game" part, if one team had more kids than
>> the other, they'd redistribute kids so that the two sides had the same
>> number of kids.
>>
>> It seemed to work out OK.
>
>Yeah, until the one time that the kid from the other team who was playing
>for
>our side started bawling because she wasn't with her team. That was the
>last
>time we did that.

The trick is to ask for volunteers from the bigger team.

grandma Rosalie

[dragonlady]

In article >,
"bizby40" > wrote:

> "dragonlady" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "bizby40" > wrote:
> >
> >> But
> >> more often, we'd barely make our 8, and our kids would end up exhausted
> >> running the whole time while the other team had 2 alternates per team
> >> and the kids would be refreshed. Sometimes we coudln't even meet the
> >> 8, so we'd end up playing 3 on 3 and the other team would have a lot of
> >> kids sitting around bored.
> >
> > When my kids were that young, we only had set "teams" for the practicing
> > part. Once it came to the "game" part, if one team had more kids than
> > the other, they'd redistribute kids so that the two sides had the same
> > number of kids.
> >
> > It seemed to work out OK.
>
> Yeah, until the one time that the kid from the other team who was playing
> for
> our side started bawling because she wasn't with her team. That was the
> last
> time we did that.
>
> Bizby

Actually, now that I think about it, it ALWAYS came out even, because,
while there were two "teams" scheduled to play, the two were always
"redistributed" to have even sides, and the teams didn't actually all
play on the same side ever. So it was expected that you had a coach who
worked with you to build skills, then you played a game with a bunch of
other kids -- but there was no expectation that everyone you practiced
with would be on your "team".

I'm not sure this is clear, so let me try it this way: there would be
Group A (with coach A) and Group B (with coach B) for the skills part of
the practice. When it came time for the game part, there were teams Red
and Blue, and each team had kids from both Group A and Group B -- and
the coaches pretty much coached everyone.

Since the object was to build skills and have a good time, rather than
to foster competitiveness, this seemed to work out. As they got old
enough for real "teamwork" to matter they shifted to older teams where
the team WAS expected to play together, unless someone volunteered to
play on a team that was short. (And, at older levels still where they
kept team stats, a team might forfeit a game when they didn't have
enough players, but then "borrow" some members from the other team just
to be able to play a game while they had the field.)
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

[bizby40]

"dragonlady" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "bizby40" > wrote:
>
>> "dragonlady" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "bizby40" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> But
>> >> more often, we'd barely make our 8, and our kids would end up
>> >> exhausted
>> >> running the whole time while the other team had 2 alternates per team
>> >> and the kids would be refreshed. Sometimes we coudln't even meet the
>> >> 8, so we'd end up playing 3 on 3 and the other team would have a lot
>> >> of
>> >> kids sitting around bored.
>> >
>> > When my kids were that young, we only had set "teams" for the
>> > practicing
>> > part. Once it came to the "game" part, if one team had more kids than
>> > the other, they'd redistribute kids so that the two sides had the same
>> > number of kids.
>> >
>> > It seemed to work out OK.
>>
>> Yeah, until the one time that the kid from the other team who was playing
>> for
>> our side started bawling because she wasn't with her team. That was the
>> last
>> time we did that.
>>
>> Bizby
>
> Actually, now that I think about it, it ALWAYS came out even, because,
> while there were two "teams" scheduled to play, the two were always
> "redistributed" to have even sides, and the teams didn't actually all
> play on the same side ever. So it was expected that you had a coach who
> worked with you to build skills, then you played a game with a bunch of
> other kids -- but there was no expectation that everyone you practiced
> with would be on your "team".

Ah, now, that might have been a better way do do it. In our league,
you practiced and played with the same kids, so you got to know
them and expect to be playing with them. Also, you were all given
the same color t-shirt, so you thought of yourself as a "Purple Tiger"
or a "Blue Eagle." They only borrowed from one team to the other
if one team had less than the required 8 players. And understandably,
a 5 year old Blue Eagle didn't like suddently becoming a Purple Tiger.
That's why it didn't work out as well for us.

Once they hit 6, they moved from "Hot Shots" to "Rookie League."
Then they had seperate practices and games, and the team identity
is even stronger.

I don't have any problems with the way they run things up through
the Rookie League -- but past that I've heard it becomes very
competitive, with some coaches "recruiting" the best players. So
then you end up with some killer teams that can't be beaten, and
the teams of leftovers who can't win. We haven't reached that
level with soccer yet, so I can only hope it isn't as bad as I've
heard.

On the other hand, even the Rookie League (coach or machine
pitch) baseball is very competitive. They do keep score -- these
kids are 8 or 9 -- and there was clear recruitment going on there.
They have "try-outs" where the kids are evaluated and assigned
to teams. They are supposed to balance them out skill-wise, but
it doesn't work well. From what I've heard, it works this way:
A coach sees a kid he wants on his team, he asks the dad (it
could be the mom, but is virtually always the dad for some
reason) to be an assistant coach. Kids are always allowed to
play for the team that their dad coaches. With up to 4 assistant
coaches, you can build a powerhouse of 5 players. And with
all the best kids spoken for, you are left with the rest to set up
the teams and do the balancing with.

It's pretty disheartening for a team of 8 year olds to be
completely trashed by another of the "balanced" teams.

Bizby

> I'm not sure this is clear, so let me try it this way: there would be
> Group A (with coach A) and Group B (with coach B) for the skills part of
> the practice. When it came time for the game part, there were teams Red
> and Blue, and each team had kids from both Group A and Group B -- and
> the coaches pretty much coached everyone.
>
> Since the object was to build skills and have a good time, rather than
> to foster competitiveness, this seemed to work out. As they got old
> enough for real "teamwork" to matter they shifted to older teams where
> the team WAS expected to play together, unless someone volunteered to
> play on a team that was short. (And, at older levels still where they
> kept team stats, a team might forfeit a game when they didn't have
> enough players, but then "borrow" some members from the other team just
> to be able to play a game while they had the field.)
> --
> Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care
>