The Trump Card
August 30, 2013
The cardinal principles for those preparing the playing rules of school sports are these:
- Preserve the sound traditions of the sport.
- Minimize risk.
- Provide for orderly administration.
- Maintain balance between offense and defense.
These were recited frequently when I was an employee of the National Federation of State High School Associations early in my career, when I was the staff liaison to the rules committees for ice hockey, soccer, swimming & diving and volleyball. These principles have been repeated many times over many years as the filter for proposals to modify contest rules in all sports.
A serious student of playing rules has known that the high school rules – enforced by part-time officials – generally have fewer exceptions than the rules on higher levels where officials have more time and training. NFL football, for example, will have exception upon exception to general principles of rules enforcement, which high school rules makers avoid. In other words, ease of administration has been more important for the high school level than a perfect balance between offense and defense in every circumstance of the contest.
It is clear now that the rules makers on all levels – from the pros to peewees – have concluded that “player safety trumps competitive advantage.” Exactly that phrase was used by some of the nation’s highest profile sports officials and supervisors of officials at high school, college and professional levels during a panel discussion closing the National Association of Sports Officials Summit in Grand Rapids last month.
More than perfect balance between offense and defense, more than ease of administration, even more than preserving the sound traditions of the sport, the rules makers are demanding player protection. In subtle ways in some sports, and smack between the eyes in football.
Go to the MHSAA Health & Safety Page, or the Football Page for more.
Correctable Error?
May 30, 2017
A decade has passed since the court-ordered change in several sports seasons for Michigan high schools. Ten years has brought resignation more than satisfaction; and yet there remains hope in some places that the new status quo is not permanent, at least for those sports seasons changes that were and are seen by many people as collateral damage in a fight over seasons for girls basketball and volleyball.
Actually, the lawsuit sought to place all girls seasons in the same seasons as boys, like college schedules. The federal court did not require simultaneous scheduling; but the court did bring the intercollegiate mindset to the case. It determined, regardless of other facts, that the intercollegiate season was the “advantageous” season for high school sports. And the principle upon which it approved the compliance plan for high school sports in Michigan was that if all the seasons were not simultaneous for boys and girls, then there should be rough equality in the number of boys and girls assigned to “disadvantageous” seasons.
So, for example, from the federal court’s perspective, fall is the advantageous season for soccer, winter for swimming & diving, and spring for tennis. As for golf, the court opined that, even though it’s not the season of the NCAA championships, maybe fall was the better season. The court began with tortured logic and ended with hypocrisy.
As a result, in the Lower Peninsula, regardless of the preferences of the people involved, girls and boys had to switch seasons in two sports to even up the number of boys seasons and girls seasons in what the court had determined were disadvantageous. Schools thought the switch of golf and tennis for the genders was less injurious than switching soccer and swimming.
In the Upper Peninsula, because swimming and golf are combined for the genders in the winter and spring, respectively, the court’s option was to switch boys and girls seasons for either soccer or tennis. The schools chose soccer as the least disruptive change.
As people count the damaging effects and think about challenging the court-ordered placements a decade later, they must understand the court was looking for balance, for having the genders share the burden of participating in disadvantageous seasons. Moving Lower Peninsula boys golf to join girls in the fall and/or switching Lower Peninsula boys and girls tennis back to what was preferred and in place before judicial interference would recreate the imbalance the federal court conjured up and sought to remedy.
Those of us involved see many advantages to conducting fall golf for both genders in the Lower Peninsula and switching Lower Peninsula tennis seasons for boys and girls, no matter when colleges schedule those sports or how impractical the court’s logic and how inconsistently it was applied. Nevertheless, correcting the court’s errors could be both contentious and costly.