Boise State volleyball forfeits match against opponent with trans player

RunRagged wrote:

Wait until people hear about coed volleyball wrote:

I know half the women are literally risking their lives playing a trans woman in volleyball. I scarcely remember the bloodbath of my coed volleyball league. If it wasn’t for the fog of alcohol in the beers consumed I’d still be having nightmares about all the women that died that Thursday evening.

It was only years later when I revisited the scene sober that I realized the sand was the crushed up bones of all the deceased. To imagine that coed volleyball is still played regularly in America in both sand versions and in gymnasiums in the winter.

Maybe I’ll head to the park tonight and watch 30-40 modern day gladiator women risk their very lives maintaining this barbaric tradition.

But people who play coed volleyball usually do so under the special rules established for mixed-sex play that are meant to make the games fun and fair for all, whilst reducing the risk of injury to female players.

In co-ed VB, the same number of male and female players have to be on each side of the net, and male and female players are alternated in the rotation.

In "reverse coed" VB, the net is at the height used in women’s VB. Men can jump serve, but they're not allowed to block. Men are also prohibited from attacking the ball above the height of the net from in front of the attack line. Men can attack a ball that is above the height of the net from anywhere on the court, but the ball must take an immediate upward trajectory - they can't hit the ball horizontally or downward in part to eliminate the chance that they'll smash a female player in the face/head and hurt her.

In "regular coed" volleyball, the net is at the height used in men’s VB. If there's only one male player in the front row, then another single man may come from the back row to block, but not hit. If the ball is touched more than once on one side, then a female player must make one of the contacts. There are no blocking or attacking restrictions on female players - only on males.

That’s very different to what’s going on here. Blaire Fleming is a full-grown adult male who’s playing women’s NCAA volleyball under the rules for women’s single-sex play.

In all the women's games that Fleming plays in, all of Fleming's opponents are female.

Boise, you're my hero wrote:

Boise, you're my hero wrote:

I'm curious about her lawsuit against Stanford and the NCAA for "dangerous practices." It appears these are just freak incidents where she was hit in the head by the ball. It happens sometimes. I guess if she was THAT concerned for her safety she could have worn a helmet, just like a very small number of pole vaulters do. Most college softball pitchers wear a facemask despite the small possibility that a line drive could hit them in the face. I sympathize with her and feel bad that her career was ended due to concussions, but she chose to play the sport with the highest rate of concussions in women's collegiate sports and did so without wearing any additional protection. Not the fault of Stanford nor the NCAA.

Had some time and decided to do a little digging. According to this thorough (and long) article, she first suffered a concussion in high school. She was out for a month and when she tried to return, she still had symptoms and was held out even longer.

At Stanford, she was hurt in practice doing a drill the coach referred to as "The Courage Drill" where the player stands 10 feet from the net and a coach hits medium speed spikes at them. She was taken to the hospital and the Stanford doctor diagnosed her with a mild concussion. Five days later, she was cleared to play and played in a game on Day 7 post concussion and the same Stanford doctor listed her as "concussion, resolved." She played the rest of the season and took a ball to the head in her final match. She was not evaluated for a concussion at this time. She continued to have all kinds of lingering issues (vertigo, confusion, insomnia, depression, etc.

Link:hrealsports.substack.com/p/what-happen...

Kickers usually win wrote:

RunRagged wrote:

But people who play coed volleyball usually do so under the special rules established for mixed-sex play that are meant to make the games fun and fair for all, whilst reducing the risk of injury to female players.

In co-ed VB, the same number of male and female players have to be on each side of the net, and male and female players are alternated in the rotation.

In "reverse coed" VB, the net is at the height used in women’s VB. Men can jump serve, but they're not allowed to block. Men are also prohibited from attacking the ball above the height of the net from in front of the attack line. Men can attack a ball that is above the height of the net from anywhere on the court, but the ball must take an immediate upward trajectory - they can't hit the ball horizontally or downward in part to eliminate the chance that they'll smash a female player in the face/head and hurt her.

In "regular coed" volleyball, the net is at the height used in men’s VB. If there's only one male player in the front row, then another single man may come from the back row to block, but not hit. If the ball is touched more than once on one side, then a female player must make one of the contacts. There are no blocking or attacking restrictions on female players - only on males.

That’s very different to what’s going on here. Blaire Fleming is a full-grown adult male who’s playing women’s NCAA volleyball under the rules for women’s single-sex play.

In all the women's games that Fleming plays in, all of Fleming's opponents are female.

Other than the anecdotal story from one of her teammates, who also joined the lawsuit against the NCAA,it hasn’t been established whether Fleming spikes the ball significantly harder than other players. This is her 4th year, and there haven’t been any stories about her giving players concessions.

too old for this wrote:

I've watched some Blaire Fleming highlights, both HS and college. Some thoughts . . .

There is nothing that exceptional about his leaping ability. He gets up, but no more so than a typical female outside hitter. And he's not overly quick or fast; pretty average for a guy.

There are two BIG differences I notice in comparison to his female counterparts:

1. His attack quickness is much faster than a female. Meaning how quick he transitions and gets off the ground to attack the ball.

2. His swing power & swing speed is very noticeable. Especially in the HS videos. I've seen random guys play volleyball and connect with that much power. Let them train specifically and they'll be taking girls heads off.

Fleming is no more than a sub par male athlete. Absolutely ridiculous it's gone on this long without noticing. But that's just it. If he was truly ripping it with tremendous power/speed, this story would have popped up years ago.

Still stupid and demeaning to girls/women.

samcallan wrote:

too old for this wrote:

I've watched some Blaire Fleming highlights, both HS and college. Some thoughts . . .

There is nothing that exceptional about his leaping ability. He gets up, but no more so than a typical female outside hitter. And he's not overly quick or fast; pretty average for a guy.

There are two BIG differences I notice in comparison to his female counterparts:

1. His attack quickness is much faster than a female. Meaning how quick he transitions and gets off the ground to attack the ball.

2. His swing power & swing speed is very noticeable. Especially in the HS videos. I've seen random guys play volleyball and connect with that much power. Let them train specifically and they'll be taking girls heads off.

Fleming is no more than a sub par male athlete. Absolutely ridiculous it's gone on this long without noticing. But that's just it. If he was truly ripping it with tremendous power/speed, this story would have popped up years ago.

Still stupid and demeaning to girls/women.

But a "sub par" male athlete can still be better than a lot of female athletes. How many HS runners run faster than the world champion in that same event every year? Women's college basketball teams often get guys who played in high school but did not play in college to scrimmage the women. There were some fun stories about the guy who guarded Caitlin Clark in practice. She would win most of the battles, but she was one of the best (the best?) college player of her day and he was some guy off the street who was not playing for the Iowa men's team.

Your argument seems to be that as long as they are not "that good" they should be allowed to play. Okay, then let's restructure all sports into something like tennis where you have a rating and can play only in events with other players rated that same level. Do away with sex being the criteria. Let's do the same with pro sports and the Olympics. Sorry only people who can run 13:30 in the 5000m can compete. Oh you are a woman who runs 14:20? Sorry you need to go elsewhere.

too old for this wrote:

samcallan wrote:

But a "sub par" male athlete can still be better than a lot of female athletes. How many HS runners run faster than the world champion in that same event every year? Women's college basketball teams often get guys who played in high school but did not play in college to scrimmage the women. There were some fun stories about the guy who guarded Caitlin Clark in practice. She would win most of the battles, but she was one of the best (the best?) college player of her day and he was some guy off the street who was not playing for the Iowa men's team.

Your argument seems to be that as long as they are not "that good" they should be allowed to play. Okay, then let's restructure all sports into something like tennis where you have a rating and can play only in events with other players rated that same level. Do away with sex being the criteria. Let's do the same with pro sports and the Olympics. Sorry only people who can run 13:30 in the 5000m can compete. Oh you are a woman who runs 14:20? Sorry you need to go elsewhere.

You misread my intent, and now that I read it back to myself, I can see it may look like I'm indifferent about Fleming playing.

That's big H E L L NO!!!

I think it's disgusting and demeaning and weak of him to pull this off.

I was making the "sub-par" athlete point because he seemed to fly under the radar, because he was just as good as the women he was playing, not substantially better.

I think this is awful. I have two daughters and would go ballistic if this happened in our state. I live in Texas, so I don't see that happening.

-----------

When all this reared up a few years ago, I joked with my good 800m kid he should just identify as a girl for one week, break the WR, then tell everyone he changed his mind a week later. It might be what is needed to make a mockery out of it so more people might realize how stupid it really is.

Kickers usually win wrote:

too old for this wrote:

You misread my intent, and now that I read it back to myself, I can see it may look like I'm indifferent about Fleming playing.

That's big H E L L NO!!!

I think it's disgusting and demeaning and weak of him to pull this off.

I was making the "sub-par" athlete point because he seemed to fly under the radar, because he was just as good as the women he was playing, not substantially better.

I think this is awful. I have two daughters and would go ballistic if this happened in our state. I live in Texas, so I don't see that happening.

-----------

When all this reared up a few years ago, I joked with my good 800m kid he should just identify as a girl for one week, break the WR, then tell everyone he changed his mind a week later. It might be what is needed to make a mockery out of it so more people might realize how stupid it really is.

Unless it turns out your good 800m kid received hormone treatments prior to starting puberty, he can’t break the WR. The rules aren’t as stupid as you think.