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.
Living With Change
December 1, 2017
One of the odd and irksome scenes I observe occurs when a relative newcomer to an enterprise lectures more seasoned veterans about change. About how change is all around us, and inevitable. About how we must embrace it and keep pace with it.
All that is true, of course; and no one knows more about that than the veteran being subjected to the newcomer’s condescension.
No one “gets it” better than those who have lived and worked through it. Short-timers can’t claim superiority on a subject they’ve only read or heard about.
Who has the deeper appreciation of change in our enterprise? The person who started working before the Internet, or after? Before social media, or after?
Who has keener knowledge of change in youth sports? The person in this work before, or after, the Amateur Athletic Union changed its focus from international competition and the Olympics to youth sports?
Who sees change more profoundly? The one who launched a career before the advent of commercially-driven sports specialization, or the one who has only seen the youth sports landscape as it exists today?
Who can better evaluate the shifting sands: newcomers or the ones who labored before colleges televised on any other day but Saturday and the pros televised on any other day but Sunday (and Thanksgiving)?
Where newcomers see things as they are, veterans can see things that have changed. They can be more aware of change, and more appreciative of its pros and cons. They didn’t merely inherit change, they lived it.