Mounting Evidence
October 10, 2014
- On July 15 (“Misspent Money”), the Chicago Tribune’s William Hageman was the reporter and Utah State University provided the research. The message was that sports specialization is a serious waste of family resources.
- On July 18 (“Specialization Risks”), the renowned David Epstein was the writer and Loyola University of Chicago provided the work. The message was that serious health risks make specialization counterproductive to successful sports careers.
- On Sept. 5 (“More Than a Myth”), I reported that the Lansing State Journal picked a three-sport male and four-sport female as its 2013-14 high school athletes of the year – practical proof that the reports of the death of the multi-sport athlete are greatly exaggerated.
Last month, Athletic Business recalled its August 2013 interview with the often quoted Dr. James Andrews, the orthopedic surgeon and injury consultant and author of “Any Given Monday: Sports Injuries and How to Prevent Them for Athletes, Parents and Coaches – Based on My Life in Sports Medicine.” In this interview, Dr. Andrews reiterated his earlier statements (some quoted in earlier postings here) that there is a “dramatic increase in overuse injuries ... due in large part to kids participating in one sport all year ...”
Athletic Business editor-in-chief Dennis Van Milligen added in his September 2014 editorial:
“Parents are ‘investing’ outrageous amounts of money into their children’s athletic development, because the fear is that they will not reach the level they need to without specialization, a notion constantly disproved.”
For multiple reasons, the multiple-sport experience is best. We must strive continually to make that experience possible for most of our student-athletes.
Shortcomings
April 1, 2014
A student was badly hurt in an Ice Hockey Regional Tournament game last season. A split second after dropping the puck to a teammate, and still looking in that direction, this player received the shoulder of an opposing player just seconds after coming on the ice as a legal substitute. The hit did not appear to target the head, nor seem excessively aggressive; but it was delivered to an unsuspecting and exposed player.
No penalty was called; but when the veteran and highly rated official saw video of the play, he didn’t hesitate to say, “I missed it. A penalty should have been called.”
There were other shortcomings in the delivery of this tournament experience that we regret, including that the game was managed in more partisan fashion than the MHSAA prescribes and that the on-call ambulance was slow to arrive on scene.
Within the leadership of the schools involved there has been a sense of understanding that there can be injuries in sports, especially collision sports; and that sometimes they occur on legal plays and sometimes occur during illegal plays that were not penalized.
In these circumstances, the MHSAA does not seek the punishments that a few incensed adults call for. Rather than looking backward at retribution, the MHSAA’s legal role and moral responsibility requires a more forward look toward remedies.
For example:
- How can we use this excellent official’s “no-call” as a teachable moment for other officials on a subject that is already a point of special emphasis in the NFHS Ice Hockey Rules?
- How can we use this situation as a teachable moment in preparation of coaches and players?
- How can we use this situation to improve the environment at this and all other Ice Hockey Tournament venues?
We know with certainty that both the content and the delivery of our online and face-to-face communications for 2014-15 will be affected by this very uncommon and unacceptable experience.