UTR tournament

Chaperones are permitted. It just means you don't have random adult strangers sharing a court alone with children.


We're not really talking about daycare. It's mostly just a matter of having to provide a safe environment if you're going to have a bunch of children on the premises. Kids are vulnerable in a way adults are not.
That’s called a daycare if you’re asking someone else to supervise your child & take responsibility for their safety.

It’s exactly why organizers of all events like this do not allow parents to just randomly drop their kids off. The organizers dont want the responsibility.

So now that you are aware that kids are not being left on random courts alone with creepy pedo’s, can you admit your beef with kids vs adult matches has no merit?
 
Are 16 and 17 year old kids really accompanied to all their matches by mummy and daddy? That's just so weird to me.
What’s weird is that you imply they’re too old to need supervision... yet still vunerable enough to get raeped out on a court in broad daylight?

You have to be trolling at this point.
 
Are you about to imply they’re too old to need supervision... yet still vunerable enough to get raeped out on a court in broad daylight?
I am just saying, in Australia there isn't a lot of need for helicopter parenting because there is a focus on making sure the places that kids go are safe. My parents probably would have been more reluctant to let me cycle off to play tennis all day every Saturday if I was going somewhere with a bunch of sketchy adult randos hanging around.

There's also a lot more to creating a safe environment for kids than ensuring they are not "***** in broad daylight". You know - like preventing verbal harassment, inappropriate touching, etc.
 
There's also a lot more to creating a safe environment for kids than ensuring they are not "***** in broad daylight". You know - like preventing verbal harassment, inappropriate touching, etc.
Which is why tennis events are not daycares and parents are expected to supervise their own kids.

Now can you drop it? It’s a moot issue here.
 
I just find the "it's either daycare or helicopter parenting" mentality interesting. Very American.
You are the one calling it helicopter parenting.

You are the one demanding safety & supervision.

If it’s done by the event it’s somehow not helicopter parenting? It’s the same damn thing. You just expect the organizers to do it and here we dont.

Semantics lost in translation... very Australian of you.
 
If it’s done by the event it’s somehow not helicopter parenting? It’s the same damn thing. You just expect the organizers to do it and here we dont.
Well, no. What I am talking about is providing a safe environment so that less supervision is required.

For example, when I was a kid we'd have 60-120 kids across 30 courts and maybe 6 staff members and officials overseeing the whole thing. Because the facility was a safe environment (i.e. no random adults) the kids could just be sent out to the back courts to run the matches themselves and bring the balls back when they were done.

If they'd not provided the safe environment then suddenly you do need supervision and and so you would have had dozens of parents spread over 30 courts, all watching their own kid (and a lot of parents who would have said "I don't have time to sit in the sun for six hours watching you play so you can't compete").

One of those scenarios makes a lot more sense to me, but I guess it is a cultural difference.
 
For example, when I was a kid we'd have 60-120 kids across 30 courts and maybe 6 staff members and officials overseeing the whole thing. Because the facility was a safe environment (i.e. no random adults) the kids could just be sent out to the back courts to run the matches themselves and bring the balls back when they were done.
It seems silly to define a safe environment as "no random adults." With that definition, USTA events and other tennis events that are limited to players under 18 are no safer than UTR events. I've been to many, many tennis events in the US, and while some limit competitors to those under 18, none have restricted access to the grounds. Most folks in attendance are players and their parents, but there are often other adults on the event grounds, in the waiting areas, watching the matches and so on. These events are usually held in public parks, and even the events at private clubs have done nothing to restrict who is on site.

How are UTR events less safe, since the only place they prevent the adults on site from going is on the court across the net from the juniors. If "random adults" on site make tennis unsafe for juniors, USTA events are unsafe also, as are most high school tennis events. I've frequently been one of those "random adults" at high school tennis events, either watching a junior practice or occasionally playing with an adult friend on an adjacent court. (High school events only keep random adults and others off of the courts they are actually using. All the other courts at the facility are still open to the public.)
 
Last edited:
As a parent, I never worried about whether everyone around my children had a background check. My wife and I have known too many creepy people who passed background checks (public school teachers) to have more confidence in people who have had them. Our children played lots of sports and other activities (music, church groups, hobbies) and we never worried about whether every adult who had contact with our children had a background check.

More creepy stuff happened in the public schools than ever happened in other supervised activities. Some principals:
1. We warned our children not to be alone with others. A public soccer field gives very little opportunity for evil compared with an empty classroom.
2. We personally stayed with our children until we were comfortable with the overall environment and the people in charge. Often we were volunteer coaches or facilitators. Other times, we just remained in attendance as spectators. There were a number of situations where we were never comfortable leaving our children without a parent in attendance. A background check would not have raised our comfort level.
3. The other children are often more likely sources of evil than the adults in charge. For us, it's not enough for the adults in charge to pass a background check - they need to be duly diligent in protecting children from evil when the source of that evil is third parties.

Indoor venues tend to provide more opportunity for evil than outdoor venues where everyone is in sight of each other and the adult supervisors (and the parents if they stay and watch.)

The tennis venues I've been to provide little opportunity for harm to juniors. They tend to be open, public parks or similar. If an adult who is not a parent stops to watch, it seldom takes long for a parent to start a conversation with them and see what's up. The most dangerous thing I ever saw (and I paid close attention) was a drug deal in a public park maybe 100 yards from the courts where my son was having lessons. I pulled my son from the lesson and we went home. The real risk was minimal, but I wanted to set a good example for my son to leave when drugs arrive at a location.

All things considered, I would not be any slower to allow my children to participate in UTR tournaments that include adults. UTR tournaments do not represent any risk to my children's safety, but they do often provide additional and unique competition opportunities closer to home.

I also appreciate that our government is not so draconian as to force background checks. It's not making the public schools any safer - it just adds expense and bureaucracy. About half the available youth sports our children have participated in do require background checks for adults working with children, but I have not seen anything that suggests those background checks create a safer environment.
Highly biased and unreliable post designed to make public schools look bad. If you and your wife have known too many creepy public school teachers and not reported the matter, that is a dereliction of duty. Your "principals" do not list one actual credible fact. Most likely, you and your friends make up these anecdotes and amplify them in order to demean public schools. Most of the dangerous pedophiles have been found in private religious schools and in religious institutions, and the cover-up has been humongous, sometimes taking decades to come out. Every day one more incident is reported.

BTW, background checks are the norm these days for much of private hiring, so it is not just the government which has an interest. And background checks accomplish a lot, your ulterior motive about cheapening public schools notwithstanding. In fact, people's lives have been ruined by background checks due to them being flagged as a sex offender for being gay, and they had to go to court. Also find about how a minor crime can lead to a vicious cycle of poverty due to unemployment arising from background checks (which are very effective).

The real problem in public schools is the one you cleverly avoid - the insistence of a large section of the "religious" community to endorse the multiplication of guns in society to secure "freedom." Pedos are insignificant compared to the destruction and paranoia caused by guns. When schools are forced to employ metal detectors and security guards, their concern is not about the creepy guy lurking around, but by a full-fledged domestic terrorist carrying machine guns.
 
If you and your wife have known too many creepy public school teachers and not reported the matter, that is a dereliction of duty.
There's an important difference between "creepy" and "criminal." "Creepy" means something giving a parent concern regarding the safety of their child. Criminal means evidence is present supporting law enforcement action. Some things that we have found "creepy" among public school teachers that probably did not warrant law enforcement attention:
1. Teachers possessing pornography on their personal phones and computers.
2. Teachers discussing their sex lives and STD experiences in the classroom.
3. Teachers allowing students to have sex at school.
4. Teachers promoting illegal drug use on their personal social media.
5. Teachers introducing literature in school with descriptions of sex and sexuality we believe was age-inappropriate. (Such as Allen Ginsberg's Howl in elementary school.)
6. Teachers repeatedly leering and staring at students' sexual body parts.

Many of these things will be considered creepy by lots of parents as relating to the safety of their children in school, and it is an important aspect of parental freedom to base educational choices on the things they consider important. However, to my knowledge, in most states, there is no legal duty for a parent to report concerns based on the above issues, especially if the parent has only heard of these things through their children and is not an eyewitness themselves. My wife and I did report several of the above issues to the appropriate authorities. No legal action was ever taken. In other cases, we consulted attorneys regarding whether we had a duty to report and whether any legal action could be expected to be taken based on our report. Our legal counsel told us we neither had a duty to report, nor could we expect any action to be taken if we did report.

Your "principals" do not list one actual credible fact. Most likely, you and your friends make up these anecdotes and amplify them in order to demean public schools.
Consider point 3.
3. The other children are often more likely sources of evil than the adults in charge.

Look up some studies on sexting. A large percentage of high school males in public schools are in possession of child pornography on their cell phones. Many are often actively soliciting female students to make and send them child pornography.

Also, you would do well to look up some studies on drugs and bullying in public high schools. Who is bullying other students and bringing the illegal drugs into the schools? It isn't the teachers, it's the other students.
 
Are 16 and 17 year old kids really accompanied to all their matches by mummy and daddy? That's just so weird to me.
I don't know about "all", but certainly "most." But our son played in USTA matches at the B16 and B18 levels as well as a number of UTR events. Our standard practice was to attend his matches. We also observed that at least one parent or other close relative was always or very nearly always in attendance watching his opponents.

In the US, it's considered "normal" good parenting for parents to attend their children's competitive sporting events, even through high school - and this is not just tennis, it is very common in baseball, football, soccer, etc.

Another contributing factor may be that fewer teens in the US are driving these days, likely due to changing laws and increased insurance rates. If the teen isn't driving, the responsible adult who provides the ride often stays and watches.
I tend to think a teen who can be trusted with a driver's license and car should probably be able to take care of themselves in public places like a tennis court, which is a much safer place than most roads.
 
Top