You are currently browsing the daily archive for May 11, 2009.

On Saturday morning, Robbo’s Indians faced off against our arch-rivals the Yankees, a team that was coming into the game with a 5-0 record.

We duly stepped up, and by the end of the third inning had built a fairly substantial lead.  Nonetheless, the Yankees rallied and, by the middle of the last inning, had tied it all up.  It thus fell on us to hold them in their final at bat from scoring any more runs. (Because of the demand for fields, we have strick time limits in our league and games may end in a tie.)

I’ve made it my policy to shift the girls around during the games, having most of them play the same position no more than one or two innings.  I believe this is fairly standard policy at this level (9 through 11 year olds) and is a good thing, in that it gives them a chance to get experience in difference defensive spots.  I also make it my policy not to mess about with fielding assignments once I’ve made them up, in part because it’s a pain in the neck to start juggling them in the middle of a game and also in part because I wish to avoid favoritism – either real or perceived.

Nonetheless, as I looked down my chart for the final inning, I saw that I had put our least talented player at 2nd base.  She’s a sweet kid and she tries very hard, but the fact of the matter is that she’s simply not a ball player.   Knowing that if we were going to hang on, it was going to be through good infield work, I fretted for a few minutes about this.  Suddenly, however, a voice in my head said, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.  Or the one.”

I then quickly switched the gel out into right field and put a surer glove at 2nd in her place. 

It turned out that my hunch was correct.  We did hold the other team to a tie, thanks in no small part to a critical play at 2nd.

I’ve been thinking about that switch ever since.  I’m pretty sure that no offense was taken by anyone and all ended well.  Certainly there are situations where such measures are called for.  But what is the line?  What is the correct balance between trying to win games and ensuring that everyone gets solid playing time in multiple positions?

Perhaps there isn’t any one right answer and it simply depends on the situation.

Word goes round the clubs that Sir Basil Seal has returned to the blogsphere.

This ought, of course, to be ripping news to my fellow port-swillers, Sir Basil being a veritable pukka sahib among the more discriminating blog readers.  Unfortunately, it will also have two immediate effects here:

First, the amount of dosh Robbo shells out on books will spike again, self being almost incapable of resisting the recommendations that Sir Basil sends down like googlies on a sticky wicket.

Second, the amount of time Robbo spends in the ol’ confessional will spike as well, given that Sir Basil is to the RCBfA what Sir Joseph Banks was to the Royal Society, a discoverer and promoter of all the choicest, ah, fruit to be found across the Seven Seas.

Of course, such burdens will be well worth it.

Welcome back!

For nearly sixteen years of marriage and over eleven years of parenthood, Mrs. R has known well that I consider both Mother’s Day and Father’s Day to be nothing more than faux holidays pushed on a consumer society by the eeeeevil Hallmark/FTD/Zales cabal and their satellites.

And yet, only this year did I get in trouble for ignoring the whole business.

Isn’t there some kind of statute of limitations applicable here?  Or does my yearly refusal to “do something” constitute an ongoing violation of the Uniform Spousal Behavior Act, as amended, thus leaving me constantly open to prosecution?


Blog Stats

  • 501,221 hits
May 2009