Limitations of Rules
November 15, 2013
Those who make rules ought to have knowledge of the limitations of rules, lest they overreach and over-regulate.
Dov Seidman writes in how: Why HOW We Do Anything Means Everything: “Rules fail because you cannot write a rule to contain every possible behavior in the vast spectrum of human conduct. There will always be gray areas, and therefore, given the right circumstances, opportunities, or outside pressures, some people might be motivated to circumvent them. When they do, our typical response is just to make more rules. Rules, then, become part of the problem.”
The NCAA is under constant criticism for its voluminous rule book which seems to pry into myriad of daily activities of athletes, coaches, boosters and others with so many rules it’s impossible for people to know them all. So university athletic departments must hire compliance officers to guide people – effectively absolving the people in the trenches from knowing the rules and committing to their adherence; and the NCAA office must hire investigations to sort through all the allegations of wrongdoing.
While much trimmer than the NCAA Manual, the MHSAA Handbook is much larger today than its original versions. Still, every year in December when the MHSAA staff conducts a series of meetings that kicks off a six-month process of reviewing theHandbook, there is a concerted effort to “make the rules better without making the rule book larger.”
We know that unless the rules address a specific problem and are written with clarity and enforced with certainty, rules do more harm than they do good. “This,” according to Seidman, “creates a downward spiral of rulemaking which causes lasting detriment to the trust we need to sustain society. With each successive failure of rules, our faith in the very ability of rules to govern human conduct decreases. Rules, the principal arm of the way we govern ourselves, lose their power, destroying our trust in both those who make them and the institutions they govern.”
The One Thing
June 17, 2016
“If funding were not an issue, what’s the one thing you would do at the MHSAA?”
That’s the question posed late last month by a candidate for employment at the MHSAA; and I answered without any hesitancy.
I would require and pay for both initial and continuing education of all coaches, both high school and junior high/middle school, head coaches and assistants, paid and volunteer. It would occur mostly face to face, and it would be intentional in its conveyance of the meaning of educational athletics and the definition of success in school-sponsored sports.
The coach is the front line in the delivery of the core values of educational athletics and the immediate and lifetime benefits of school sports participation. More than any other person, coaches can change students’ lives and they can create a culture in their program that changes the attitudes of parents toward youth sports and the attitudes of spectators toward officials.
The well-trained coach, the purposefully trained coach, not only gives the student a better experience, that coach also gives parents a reality check and helps give officials a more sportsmanlike atmosphere in which to work. Well-trained coaches enhance almost every aspect of the school sports experience – improving participant safety and promoting a lifetime of healthy habits; teaching and demanding good sportsmanship that evolves toward good citizenship; promoting teamwork, hard work, fair play, respect for rules and others.
Delivering with purpose and passion initial and ongoing education that is research-based, student-focused and required of all interscholastic coaches, is best for kids and for the future of school sports in Michigan. And it would contribute mightily to the quality of our schools and communities.
Over the past decade, approximately 20,000 individuals have completed one or more levels of the MHSAA Coaches Advancement Program (CAP). The goal should be 20,000 coaches through multiple levels of CAP each year. That’s the one thing the MHSAA should do.