Post-Event Celebrations
March 16, 2012
In my last posting I praised the high school participant as the best behaved athlete on any level of sport. It’s ironic: based on what we see on higher levels, the older the athlete becomes, the more immature he or she is allowed to behave.
But we do have at least one conduct problem; and it’s one with potential for much bigger problems. It’s post-event celebrations.
Post-event celebrations have led to property damage, and they will lead to personal injuries unless we give the problem more careful attention and supervision.
Post-event celebrations are largely outside of the published playing rules, and they are usually beyond the jurisdiction of contest officials.
So, they will end up being the responsibility of game administration, and injuries will become the liability of game administrators.
This spring, the Representative Council may adopt more policies and procedures to which the MHSAA will direct more attention. The initial focus, as proposed, is on MHSAA team tournaments and to hold participating schools more explicitly accountable for property damage caused by celebrating teams and spectators.
Hopefully, attention to the broader topic and tougher policies for this narrow slice of the problem will reverse what we see as an unhealthy trend in school sports – excessive post-event celebrations.
Student-Centered Coaching
August 1, 2017
The November 1929 Bulletin of the Michigan High School Athletic Association includes this editorial reprinted from the Oct. 7, 1929 Grand Rapids Herald which invites discussion about what more we might do to promote leadership and sportsmanship in school-sponsored sports today.
“Football teams of Greenville and Ionia high schools Saturday introduced an innovation the nature of which challenges consideration of other Michigan schools. From the time the first whistle blew for Saturday’s game until its close the professional coaches employed by the two schools had no contact with players. Between the halves the usual harangue by the coach was dispensed with in favor of a review of play by players. * * * The result of such a policy is unsullied amateurism along the lines we often have urged. The players are on their own. They do their own thinking as well as playing. Under the system as usually followed the coach sits on the sidelines. If he sees an opportunity for a plan of play differing from that being followed he sends in a substitute who carries instructions: ‘Stick to forward passes. Bang away at their left end,’ etc. Between the halves the coach points out faults and emphasizes opportunities for the final half. In net effect the coach directs the play. The initiative of captain or quarterback is permitted only so long as the coach approves. Under the Greenville system the captain is the only recognized leader of the team. He directs substitutions, orders plays, advises players, etc. At Greenville school boys played against school boys. On other western Michigan gridirons a coach is the 12th member of every team. * * * The plan adopted at Greenville was suggested by President Angell of Yale in his annual report for 1927-28. He urged that, ‘There is a wide and well-grounded sentiment that the control of our games should be put back more fully into the hands of the players.’ Yale has not heeded Prexy Angell’s advice, but the New York State Public High School Athletic Association has adopted it as also have some Detroit high schools. It takes the sting of professionalism out of the scholastic game. The able coach still has ample opportunity to prove his worth in teaching the fundamentals of the game and in developing ‘football brains’; but when the whistle blows it is high school team against high school team. What’s the matter with trying that in Grand Rapids? What, if any, are the arguments against it?”