Not the Critic
February 22, 2014
It is predictable; and it’s petty, not profound. Almost without exception, when a rule is enforced in one situation, the MHSAA will be criticized for not pursuing a similar penalty in other cases.
Of course, the critic is apt to draw parallels where they don’t exist. The critic is likely to assume facts that are not correct, and likely to call for the MHSAA to apply rules that the critic misunderstands, and to assess penalties that are in no one’s authority to impose. The critic can be unbothered by truth, accuracy and accountability. We cannot.
To be honest, MHSAA staff members have often been frustrated that the rules as they are written have no way to stop a particular transfer, or that people will not give testimony to enable a finding of undue influence. The reality is that rules cannot be written to stop everything bad without interfering with very much that is not bad.
And it is equally true that many people who have condemning information do not have the courage to share that information. And that some school administrators are too busy to get involved in such messiness. And that other school administrators are only too happy to have a malcontent athlete or parent move to another school.
Even at risk of irritating member school colleagues, the MHSAA ignores no allegations of violations by its member schools, their personnel or their students, even though we know that very many will be without merit – sometimes an innocent misunderstanding, other times a personal vendetta. And we know there may be just as many situations going unnoticed by or unreported to MHSAA staff.
And we also know that even when we do our job and we get it right – which is almost all the time – we may still be criticized by those who either have a personal agenda or do not have all the facts.
What is also true but unknown to the critic is the frequency with which MHSAA staff works proactively with schools to avoid problems, and how often MHSAA staff works privately with schools which self-report and quickly penalize their own constituents. A high percentage of violations have little publicity because we are intentional in efforts to keep a low profile for the unsavory side of educational athletics, and to keep the spotlight on the achievements of young people.
No Further Review
December 15, 2015
The rise of instant replay came with the hope if not the promise that errors by officials could and would be corrected. Now we know those expectations are not being realized.
In many cases this fall, we have watched college and professional football instant replay officials stand by helplessly because the rules of replay would not permit them to change the call on the field. In many other cases, we have watched instant replay officials make wrong calls from the replay booth.
We have always known that the high school level would not be able to perform extensive instant replay review – we don’t have the number and quality of camera angles at our games to judge the plays. But now we know that the existence of such technology does not assure the accuracy of decision-making.
So, let the so-called higher levels interrupt and prolong their games with questionable procedures that are resulting in as much acrimony as accuracy. Turns out that on this matter, the high school level is lucky to lack the resources of the college and professional game. For us, there’s no need for further review of further review.