Logo

A Different Language

January 16, 2015

Every other year my wife and I are able to spend the December holidays with our son and his wife who are international school educators, but we must journey to the other side of the world to make that happen. In crossing both the international dateline and the equator to see them in Australia last month, I learned a helpful lesson for those of us who try to communicate about school sports.
For two weeks I attempted to be a follower of Australia's "national pastime" -- cricket -- but try as I might, I could not grasp a passable understanding of the sport. On the surface, cricket seems a lot like baseball; but there are far more differences than similarities to the sport many North, Central and Latin Americans grew up with and know so well. I watched cricket on television and read the extensive newspaper coverage every day; but even after studying the rules and listening to and questioning a local expert, even the most basic rules, strategies and language of cricket remain mysteries to me.  
For a while at least, my struggle with cricket may make me more understanding of some parents and others who are so quick to criticize high school sports. Possibly I’ll be more purposeful and patient to explain our policies and the philosophies behind them.
Many of today's parents and spectators have never played the sports their children now play. They don't really know the rules and strategies of the games that were not a part of their upbringing, and they tend to be more unreasonably critical of decisions by coaches and officials in those sports.
Competitive cheer, gymnastics, lacrosse, ice hockey, soccer and other sports seem "foreign" to those who never played those sports. But it's true that in all sports we are likely to experience the most criticism, and the most unjustifiable complaints, where there is the least understanding or appreciation. That's true of a particular sport’s playing rules, and it's also true of the policies and procedures that govern all school sports. And in both cases, this demands extra effort on the part of coaches and administrators to communicate the rules and the reason for those rules.

Upon Further Review

November 6, 2015

Michigan was among the first dozen statewide high school associations in the U.S. to reduce the amount of contact during football practices. Since Michigan acted prior to the 2014 football season, the National Federation of State High School Associations has adopted recommendations, and all remaining state high school associations have adopted new restrictions.

The task force that acted early in Michigan to make the proposals that were supported by this state’s football coaches association and the MHSAA Representative Council wanted policies that could be clearly understood and easily enforced. The task force concluded that counting minutes of contact during a practice or a week was not the best approach.

Who would track the minutes for each and every player? Does the minute of contact count for a player who is only observing and not actually participating in the contact drill or scrimmage?

In limiting Michigan teams and players to one collision practice a day prior to the first game and two collision practices per week the rest of the season, the task force recommendation avoided the need to have coaches and administrators track and record the minutes of each and every player on each and every team each and every day and to determine what types of activities and what degree of involvement counted against 30- or 60- or 90-minute maximums.

It is anticipated that the MHSAA Football Committee will review in early 2016 what other states have done since the MHSAA acted in early 2014, but it is not assumed that changes are needed to existing practice policies. Further review may confirm earlier judgments about policies that are both protective of players and practical for coaches and administrators.