California's new "Mercy" rule

[amc80]

The ridiculous item of the day goes to the Northern California Federation Youth Football League. They have instituted a new mercy rule, where a coach can be fined $200 and suspended if they allow their team to beat another by more than 35 points. I don't understand how anyone thinks it is good to not allow kids to fail every now and then. Ridiculous.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/california-youth-football-mercy-rule-inflames-parental-passions-103325382.html

 

[yennyfire]

Wow! That's just nuts!! My son has been on both ends of this one...his team has lost by a ton of points and also won by a ton of points. He learned valuable lessons from BOTH experiences. What's next, no one fails a test because it would irrevocably damage their self esteem??? I'm terrified to see what kinds of adults these kids become!

 

[amc80]

Wow! That's just nuts!! My son has been on both ends of this one...his team has lost by a ton of points and also won by a ton of points. He learned valuable lessons from BOTH experiences. What's next, no one fails a test because it would irrevocably damage their self esteem??? I'm terrified to see what kinds of adults these kids become!

Exactly. These are the kids who will grow up, fail a test, and jump of off a bridge.

 

[msop04]

The ridiculous item of the day goes to the Northern California Federation Youth Football League. They have instituted a new mercy rule, where a coach can be fined $200 and suspended if they allow their team to beat another by more than 35 points. I don't understand how anyone thinks it is good to not allow kids to fail every now and then. Ridiculous.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/california-youth-football-mercy-rule-inflames-parental-passions-103325382.html

by yennyfire » 25 Sep 2013 11:49


Wow! That's just nuts!! My son has been on both ends of this one...his team has lost by a ton of points and also won by a ton of points. He learned valuable lessons from BOTH experiences. What's next, no one fails a test because it would irrevocably damage their self esteem??? I'm terrified to see what kinds of adults these kids become!

...yet another attempt at making us all "equal" or "special" -- why can't the powers that be see that they are only setting these kids up for an even more difficult reality of life??? Why even have any competition? Why even have grading systems? This makes me so angry!!

Yenny, your test comment is sadly already happening. Teachers continue to be "graded" almost solely by their students' test scores every year. These scores are supposed to be a reflection on the teacher. However, I totally disagree with it. Teachers are being denied tenure or not being hired back at all due to this. It's sad when the only way to job security (or making the state happy with falsely elevated test scores) is to "water down" each subject so that all will receive a grade that is satisfactory. All this does is short-change our students. Not everyone is meant to take Calculus, much less be expected to pass. My dad was still teaching HS when No Child Left Behind was in full swing... he actually had a kid (a freshman) say that he didn't need to study because the teacher couldn't fail him anyway... because it was against the law to try to hold him back... <sorry, rant over >

We cannot be equal in every aspect of life.
Everyone cannot be a winner.
Everyone needs to lose sometimes -- even if it means losing miserably.

 

[msop04]

^^^ DISCLAIMER: this is only my opinion. ^^^

 

[yennyfire]

^^^ DISCLAIMER: this is only my opinion. ^^^

I agree with you totally!

 

[rainwood]

I don't have a problem with this. For a long time, it's been considered unsportsmanlike to run up the score unnecessarily in football and that's been true at a variety of levels, including high school and college, not just youth football. What the gap in scoring should be might vary from coach to coach, but the general expectation is that when one team is winning by a wide margin, it will put in their second string or junior varsity or younger players at that point to better even the teams. The winning team still wins, but they aren't rubbing the other team's nose in it. It's just considered the right thing to do.

I can understand a youth league defining that gap at 35 points. Maybe some coaches weren't doing the sportsmanlike thing and they had to make it clear.

 

[amc80]

I don't have a problem with this. For a long time, it's been considered unsportsmanlike to run up the score unnecessarily in football and that's been true at a variety of levels, including high school and college, not just youth football. What the gap in scoring should be might vary from coach to coach, but the general expectation is that when one team is winning by a wide margin, it will put in their second string or junior varsity or younger players at that point to better even the teams. The winning team still wins, but they aren't rubbing the other team's nose in it. It's just considered the right thing to do.

I can understand a youth league defining that gap at 35 points. Maybe some coaches weren't doing the sportsmanlike thing and they had to make it clear.

My coworker has two kids in peewee football. At a game last weekend the score was something like 38-0. Apparently some of the other team's coaches were complaining and suggesting that they put their second string in. But the thing is, the second string was already in and had been playing for a while. That team was just much better than the other team. What then? Tell the team that is ahead that they can't score any more? Make them play left handed? And then to potentially fine the coach because his team is better (and his second string is better)?

 

[kenny]

I don't think there should be laws, especially in California, about thanking people in French.

 

[kenny]

All children are entitled to grow up to be the CEO of Apple.
If they don't get the job they are entitled to sue, Dambit!

The world owes us everything because we are each so much more special than everyone else.

 

[ksinger]

Mercy rule? The true mercy would be banning football altogether. A truly worthless sport if there ever was one. Especially when attached
to schools. Especially when helicopter/PC parents (and everyone else) gets involved. The kids just want to play a game, but it's life and death to mom and dad. Sheesh.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/the-case-against-high-school-sports/309447/

 

[House Cat]

I believe this law is ridiculous.

I also believe it takes an awful lot more than failing a test (or experiencing one failure) in order to jump off a bridge.

 

[rainwood]

Mercy rule? The true mercy would be banning football altogether. A truly worthless sport if there ever was one. Especially when attached
to schools. Especially when helicopter/PC parents (and everyone else) gets involved. The kids just want to play a game, but it's life and death to mom and dad. Sheesh.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/the-case-against-high-school-sports/309447/

I actually agree with you on football as a sport. Football is so prone to serious head injuries that I can't imagine wanting to put a kid in it.

But if two teams are badly mismatched, injury to the worse team ia probably more likely so, to me, that supports having some kind of mercy rule. Maybe the game should be over. I'd hate to see a young kid get badly hurt playing a game where the outcome had long since been determined because the teams were so mismatched. I'd feel differently at higher levels where the players know the risks, but not with young kids.

 

[kenny]

Shouldn't we have sports where the superior kids kill the inferior kids, either on the football field or via math tests?

Of course I would have been killed at age 14 on the field, but wouldn't that be best overall for human DNA and the planet?
After all the world is overpopulated, and American kids have a carbon footprint many times the size of the carbon footprints of kids in developing countries.

The superior should displace the inferior.
Fvck this equality sh!t.

 

[JewelFreak]

Great way to prepare kids for real life. I'm so disgusted, I can't think of anything to say.

--- Laurie

 

[amc80]

Shouldn't we have sports where the superior kids kill the inferior kids, either on the football field or via math tests?

Yes. If a kid is really bad at football then maybe they should find something they are better at. We all have an aptitude for something. Sometimes skill and genetics just don't allow you to be exactly what you want to be. I'd love to be a singer but my voice is terrible. My husband wanted to be a pilot (Air Force) but is too tall. Our son, if he continues along his growth curve, will likely never be a jockey.

Making kids who have a talent for something curb those talents so that the less talented kids feel better about themselves isn't right. IMHO.

 

[missy]

Mercy rule? The true mercy would be banning football altogether. A truly worthless sport if there ever was one. Especially when attached
to schools. Especially when helicopter/PC parents (and everyone else) gets involved. The kids just want to play a game, but it's life and death to mom and dad. Sheesh.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/the-case-against-high-school-sports/309447/

I actually agree with you on football as a sport. Football is so prone to serious head injuries that I can't imagine wanting to put a kid in it.

But if two teams are badly mismatched, injury to the worse team ia probably more likely so, to me, that supports having some kind of mercy rule. Maybe the game should be over. I'd hate to see a young kid get badly hurt playing a game where the outcome had long since been determined because the teams were so mismatched. I'd feel differently at higher levels where the players know the risks, but not with young kids.

Make that 3 who agree that football is a dangerous sport especially for children whose brains are still developing. And allow me to expand that to any sport where there is a large potential to get your head bashed in...boxing, rugby etc.

 

[amc80]

Mercy rule? The true mercy would be banning football altogether. A truly worthless sport if there ever was one. Especially when attached
to schools. Especially when helicopter/PC parents (and everyone else) gets involved. The kids just want to play a game, but it's life and death to mom and dad. Sheesh.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/the-case-against-high-school-sports/309447/

I actually agree with you on football as a sport. Football is so prone to serious head injuries that I can't imagine wanting to put a kid in it.

But if two teams are badly mismatched, injury to the worse team ia probably more likely so, to me, that supports having some kind of mercy rule. Maybe the game should be over. I'd hate to see a young kid get badly hurt playing a game where the outcome had long since been determined because the teams were so mismatched. I'd feel differently at higher levels where the players know the risks, but not with young kids.

Make that 3 who agree that football is a dangerous sport especially for children whose brains are still developing. And allow me to expand that to any sport where there is a large potential to get your head bashed in...boxing, rugby etc.

I believe soccer has the highest occurrence of brain injuries of any sport. So no more soccer for kids either? What about tag? Kids can trip and fall and bang their heads. Oh, wait, tag has been banned in many schools due to the embarrassment of being "it." Sigh.

 

[missy]

Mercy rule? The true mercy would be banning football altogether. A truly worthless sport if there ever was one. Especially when attached
to schools. Especially when helicopter/PC parents (and everyone else) gets involved. The kids just want to play a game, but it's life and death to mom and dad. Sheesh.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/the-case-against-high-school-sports/309447/

I actually agree with you on football as a sport. Football is so prone to serious head injuries that I can't imagine wanting to put a kid in it.

But if two teams are badly mismatched, injury to the worse team ia probably more likely so, to me, that supports having some kind of mercy rule. Maybe the game should be over. I'd hate to see a young kid get badly hurt playing a game where the outcome had long since been determined because the teams were so mismatched. I'd feel differently at higher levels where the players know the risks, but not with young kids.

Make that 3 who agree that football is a dangerous sport especially for children whose brains are still developing. And allow me to expand that to any sport where there is a large potential to get your head bashed in...boxing, rugby etc.

I believe soccer has the highest occurrence of brain injuries of any sport. So no more soccer for kids either? What about tag? Kids can trip and fall and bang their heads. Oh, wait, tag has been banned in many schools due to the embarrassment of being "it." Sigh.

Well, each parent has to decide what they think is best and keeping in mind I do not have any children if I did I certainly would not allow them to participate in any sport that I deemed dangerous and violent. I might allow them to play with the other kids occasionally not sure since I would need to be in that situation and then decide but I certainly would not allow them to be on a team where the chances of head injury was high. Of that I am fairly certain. I abhor all violent sports. Pick one where chances of head injury are less. A child's brain is still developing and there is just too much risk.

 

[rainwood]

[quote="amc80|
I believe soccer has the highest occurrence of brain injuries of any sport. So no more soccer for kids either? What about tag? Kids can trip and fall and bang their heads. Oh, wait, tag has been banned in many schools due to the embarrassment of being "it." Sigh.[/quote]

I was intrigued by your statement so I thought I'd do some quick research. A study by the Center for Injury Research and Policy found that concussions in high school athletes for the 2008-2009 school year sorted out as follows:

Football - 70,000
Girls' soccer - 24,000
Boys' soccer - 17,000
Girls' basketball - 7,000

It didn't say how many kids play the various sports so we don't know what that means as far as percentage of players getting concussions, but high school boys were more than 3 times more likely to get concussions playing football than soccer. Girls have more head injuries than boys for both soccer and basketball but the study didn't try to explain why that was the case. I don't know if that means we are more or less hard-headed!

Another study showed there was a higher rate of catastrophic head injuries (something more serious than a concussion) in high school football than college football, and the rate of these more severe injuries were much higher for players who'd had a previous head injury such as a concussion.

According to another study, the top 5 activities with the largest number of head injuries (not just concussions) for all ages were, with the largest first:

Cycling
Football
Basketball
Baseball/softball
Riding vehicles such as dune buggies, go-carts, and mini-bikes

For kids ages 5 to 18, the top 5 for concussions (doesn't include the more serious type) had the same top 3 followed by playground activities and soccer. They didn't break out in the cycling number what percentage of those had to do with traffic accidents.

So that's what I found out and thought I'd share. I didn't see Tag anywhere on these lists so I say everybody play Tag! You're it.

 

[luv2sparkle]

I agree that football is a dangerous sport, but so is skateboarding and bike riding as well. Just this week I read about three bicyclists being killed by being struck with cars. So I don't think there is anything that is really safe.

I think it's really sad that they have to make this a 'law' for youth sports. I can see both sides. I feel bad when my son's team beats another team 49-0, like we did last week, because we have been on the other side of that. But for high school sports, that's the way it goes. I don't think that is necessary for younger kids, but it should be done at the coaches level.

My son plays football. This is his third year in high school and he also played in junior high. He loves it. We have a coach who is just as interested in the boys growing up to be men of integrity and discipline as well as the wins. In fact, the former is more important. It really does take over family life a little bit. He had practice last year starting at 6 am and after school till 7. He practiced all summer and missed a week of family vacation for a week of 2 a day practices (otherwise known as hell week). My DH and I go to school and help cook a team meal every thursday and lunch for the team and take with meals for dinner on friday. We are enjoying every minute of it. We drive some long distances for games and our home will host a party for the team and parents on the night of the last game. I think there are a lot of positives. Granted, my DS does go to a private school so maybe that makes a bit of difference in how much the parents are involved.

We purchased his own helmet this year, but every year every helmet (by state law) goes back to the manufacturer for entirely new pads on the inside.

So I guess, I don't agree with those who say that we should give up on football. Sometimes the positives are pretty good too.

 

[amc80]

[quote="amc80| I believe soccer has the highest occurrence of brain injuries of any sport. So no more soccer for kids either? What about tag? Kids can trip and fall and bang their heads. Oh, wait, tag has been banned in many schools due to the embarrassment of being "it." Sigh.

I was intrigued by your statement so I thought I'd do some quick research. A study by the Center for Injury Research and Policy found that concussions in high school athletes for the 2008-2009 school year sorted out as follows: Football - 70,000 Girls' soccer - 24,000 Boys' soccer - 17,000 Girls' basketball - 7,000 It didn't say how many kids play the various sports so we don't know what that means as far as percentage of players getting concussions, but high school boys were more than 3 times more likely to get concussions playing football than soccer. Girls have more head injuries than boys for both soccer and basketball but the study didn't try to explain why that was the case. I don't know if that means we are more or less hard-headed! Another study showed there was a higher rate of catastrophic head injuries (something more serious than a concussion) in high school football than college football, and the rate of these more severe injuries were much higher for players who'd had a previous head injury such as a concussion. According to another study, the top 5 activities with the largest number of head injuries (not just concussions) for all ages were, with the largest first: Cycling Football Basketball Baseball/softball Riding vehicles such as dune buggies, go-carts, and mini-bikes For kids ages 5 to 18, the top 5 for concussions (doesn't include the more serious type) had the same top 3 followed by playground activities and soccer. They didn't break out in the cycling number what percentage of those had to do with traffic accidents. So that's what I found out and thought I'd share. I didn't see Tag anywhere on these lists so I say everybody play Tag! You're it.[/QUOTE]

Interesting. I'm not sure where I got that statistic but I heard it a long time ago. I don't know if it was associated with children or pro sports.

 

[msop04]

Chess, anyone? ...no, wait -- there would be a loser inevitably.
Old Maid? Not. a. chance... we wouldn't want anyone getting a complex. (that's like passive-agressive bullying!)

CHARADES!! Now, that's something we can play!! ...nah, better not take the chance of someone hurting, ummm... themselves??

It's no wonder why kids are such wusses these days...

I had a mother bring her 8 year old into our clinic several weeks ago. She was flipping out because her son had a bike wreck and his leg was skinned (serioulsy, it was minor), all while the kid just sat there in an embarrassed gaze. She was absolutely furious that the doc didn't think a plastic surgeon was necessary. It seems mom was worried her son would have a "lasting scar"... on his knee. < le sigh >

True story.

 

[Christina...]

I don't believe that we do our children any favors when we teach them that everyone makes the team, everyone gets a trophy, and the whole class gets an A. This only teaches them that they don't have to work hard to be successful. I think it also discourages the kids who do work hard, they begin to wonder what the point is if all of their hard work and dedication goes unnoticed or unappreciated. If there is no reward for hard work the why work hard? If you won't standout because of your individual achievements then why spend hours in the backyard perfecting your jump shot? If everyone gets an A anyway, why spend your Saturday night studying when you could be out with the rest of your friends?

Allowing children to fail helps develop strong coping skills. It instills in children that success takes hard work and dedication. When we allow children to believe that they can do or be anything they want simply by wanting it, then we produce an entire generation of children who feel entitled. Entitled to be on the team, the honor roll, be accepted by the best college, and get the best job. If we don't allow them to fail then we aren't preparing them for the inevitabilities of life, and worse we are sending them out into that world with out the skills to cope with disappointment, which of course can lead to tragic consequences, depression, addiction, abuse. Is it any wonder that the suicide rate has increased? Every person is a winner, and we'd be doing more good by helping our children determine what it is about them that makes them special. Of course we should encourage them to follow their interest, whether or not they are 'good' at them, but we should also teach them that not everybody can be good at all things all the time.

That said, I'm probably as guilty as any parent. It broke my heart to see my DS sitting on the bench for much of his first basketball season. But we also reminded him that it was his first year, and that many of the other kids had been playing and practicing for longer than him, and that if he wanted more playing time that he would have to practice just as hard as they do, perhaps even harder. And I do fight tooth and nail to make sure that he is placed in classes that challenge him even if his teacher thinks that material may be too difficult, because I believe that he should be afforded the opportunity to TRY....if he doesn't succeed, or doesn't pull his own weight, well, then I guess he doesn't belong there; but I do believe that all kids should have the OPORTUNITY to participate, but that certainly doesn't mean that they will succeed or even that they all should.

 

[ksinger]

I find it interesting that no one is discussing the other reasons why football (primarily) is so pernicious. Everyone is focused on head injuries. I think the lessons of football are actually more damaging than that. I know as a female, I've not benefited from football, and it has taught me some ugly lessons about gender in the US. I also single out football because of its primacy at colleges and beyond, and because it is an astronomical money machine. And that right there should tell us that it ain't about "sportsmanship".

I understand that sports are not evil, far from it, and have many benefits - for those who play. (And my husband points out the community involvement angle - that many parents would not be involved with the school at all were it not for sports. So that may be a benefit, although it is a pretty sad commentary on priorities too.) Those of us who had no interest in team sports were just SOL. But that is not what I'm talking about - not this "mercy" rule (adults fighting with adults, ostensibly about the kids, but it's really about themselves, as usual), but with the overemphasis on football at every level, especially highschool. If someone reading is in a state whose public schools (to the degree that they still exist) value education over tribalism, well lucky you. I live in Oklahoma, where football is LIFE. When we can't even consolidate rural districts that badly need it due to loss of population, because some podunk town's football team will be dismantled, you know that the adults have screwed it up again. And do NOT get me started on how middle and highschool athletes are given preferential treatment and passes on academics because they are athletes. My teeth will be ground to dust. And I hear tales from the inside on this quite often. It happens a LOT, and not just here, I promise you that.

I said I believe it to be a worthless sport, and I do, and it's NOT because it gives concussions, although I agree that it is ridiculously prone to serious injury of young people. No, my objections pretty much as enumerated in the article I linked. And because I believe it perpetuates a culture of watchers rather than doers. What is football about for the vast majority? It sure ain't playing it now is it? It's about consuming entertainment and socializing, which are not bad things in themselves, but when those ends subsume all others, and they do, then we have a massive problem. And when the highest paid state employees are coaches - primarily football coaches - priorities are seriously out of whack.

 

[msop04]

I don't believe that we do our children any favors when we teach them that everyone makes the team, everyone gets a trophy, and the whole class gets an A. This only teaches them that they don't have to work hard to be successful. I think it also discourages the kids who do work hard, they begin to wonder what the point is if all of their hard work and dedication goes unnoticed or unappreciated. If there is no reward for hard work the why work hard? If you won't standout because of your individual achievements then why spend hours in the backyard perfecting your jump shot? If everyone gets an A anyway, why spend your Saturday night studying when you could be out with the rest of your friends?

Allowing children to fail helps develop strong coping skills. It instills in children that success takes hard work and dedication. When we allow children to believe that they can do or be anything they want simply by wanting it, then we produce an entire generation of children who feel entitled. Entitled to be on the team, the honor roll, be accepted by the best college, and get the best job. If we don't allow them to fail then we aren't preparing them for the inevitabilities of life, and worse we are sending them out into that world with out the skills to cope with disappointment, which of course can lead to tragic consequences, depression, addiction, abuse. Is it any wonder that the suicide rate has increased? Every person is a winner, and we'd be doing more good by helping our children determine what it is about them that makes them special. Of course we should encourage them to follow their interest, whether or not they are 'good' at them, but we should also teach them that not everybody can be good at all things all the time.

That said, I'm probably as guilty as any parent. It broke my heart to see my DS sitting on the bench for much of his first basketball season. But we also reminded him that it was his first year, and that many of the other kids had been playing and practicing for longer than him, and that if he wanted more playing time that he would have to practice just as hard as they do, perhaps even harder. And I do fight tooth and nail to make sure that he is placed in classes that challenge him even if his teacher thinks that material may be too difficult, because I believe that he should be afforded the opportunity to TRY....if he doesn't succeed, or doesn't pull his own weight, well, then I guess he doesn't belong there; but I do believe that all kids should have the OPORTUNITY to participate, but that certainly doesn't mean that they will succeed or even that they all should.

+1 Very well said, Christina!

 

[rainwood]

I am mystified by how many people equate the mercy rule with "kids won't learn about failure" or "everyone gets a trophy." A kid on a team that's getting beaten by 35 points is going to know PLENTY about failure and there isn't anything in the rule that says they get a trophy for losing.

What important life lesson is a kid going to learn getting beaten by 65 points that they didn't learn getting beaten by 35 points. That the other team is a lot better? They already know that. That sometimes you lose? They already know that too. That maybe they aren't very good athletes? They'll know plenty about that if they get beaten by 35 points, especially if it happens more than once. What they WON'T learn is that it isn't a sportsmanlike thing to rub your opponent's face in a loss. You can argue whether 35 points is the right number, but the principle really is about sportsmanship and doing the right thing, and I'm disheartened that so many don't seem to value that. But as Kenny says, people vary.

 

[msop04]

I am mystified by how many people equate the mercy rule with "kids won't learn about failure" or "everyone gets a trophy." A kid on a team that's getting beaten by 35 points is going to know PLENTY about failure and there isn't anything in the rule that says they get a trophy for losing.

What important life lesson is a kid going to learn getting beaten by 65 points that they didn't learn getting beaten by 35 points. That the other team is a lot better? They already know that. That sometimes you lose? They already know that too. That maybe they aren't very good athletes? They'll know plenty about that if they get beaten by 35 points, especially if it happens more than once. What they WON'T learn is that it isn't a sportsmanlike thing to rub your opponent's face in a loss. You can argue whether 35 points is the right number, but the principle really is about sportsmanship and doing the right thing, and I'm disheartened that so many don't seem to value that. But as Kenny says, people vary.

I understand what you are saying, and I agree that beating a team by 35+ points may be getting into the "poor sportsmanship" thing... However, that's not necessarily a given, and I don't feel it's right to have a law to mandate this. A lot of times the lesser talented kids only get a chance to play when their team is up by a lot (when they send in 2nd string, 3rd string, etc)... Should we end the game by law before these other kids have an opportunity to score or even play? I think every team (and player) should be encouraged to play to the absolute best of of their ability, regardless of opponent or score. They should be taught what good sportsmanship means, but should never be penalized for scoring too many points. Penalties are already given for acts of poor sportsmanship on and off the field -- how is it "fair" and "good" to have to say, "Now, Johnny, we're winning and you're gonna get to play... but you can't score because we're up by too much...and that's just poor sportsmanship according to the law"

"...sorry, Johnny."

 

[momhappy]

I have kids in elementary school and each year they have an event called "Field Days" towards the end of the school year. They have different competitions and they have to participate in each one. I still remember when my first came home from kindergarten field days with a handful of ribbons. I gave a congratulatory hug, a high five, and then my little one showed me his ribbons. Much to my dismay, many of the ribbons were called "participation" ribbons (in other words, my kid lost, but they gave out ribbons anyways). Ugh. Seriously? When did losing, which is a normal part of life, not become okay??? They really aren't doing these kids any favors and it's so dysfunctional.

 

[msop04]

I have kids in elementary school and each year they have an event called "Field Days" towards the end of the school year. They have different competitions and they have to participate in each one. I still remember when my first came home from kindergarten field days with a handful of ribbons. I gave a congratulatory hug, a high five, and then my little one showed me his ribbons. Much to my dismay, many of the ribbons were called "participation" ribbons (in other words, my kid lost, but they gave out ribbons anyways). Ugh. Seriously? When did losing, which is a normal part of life, not become okay??? They really aren't doing these kids any favors and it's so dysfunctional.

+1000!!!

When I was a kid, you got the traditional blue, red, and white ribbons (1,2,3)... that's it. If you didn't have a ribbon, then you just didn't come in top 3! (makes sense, no?) Needless to say, I am not and have never been super athletic ( ), but I don't remember my feelings being hurt or feeling less than because the ribbons were few and far between, but it did make me feel very proud when I got one -- because I earned it... I was one bada** in the sack race, I tell you!

momhappy, your mention of participation ribbons made me think of this:

I overheard my nephew (who is in the 7th grade now) saying, "...it's so embarrassing when they hand out the pink ones [participation ribbons] every time! Why don't they just paint, 'I suck and here's the proof!!' on our foreheads or something??!! UGH!! ...c'mon now, just don't give anything!"

He thought it was stupid, too. This is coming from a child who does win a lot, but I thought it was sweet that he acknowledged the other kids embarrassment and genuinely felt for them... and for himself as well!!