Risk Minimization Reaches More
May 9, 2014
Every season – fall, winter and spring – the MHSAA launches a series of sport-specific rules/risk management meetings, completion of which has been a requirement for high school varsity head coaches and MHSAA registered officials who want to coach or officiate in the MHSAA tournament for that sport. Two significant changes will occur for the 2014-15 school year.
For the first time in 2014-15, all assistant and subvarsity high school coaches must complete the same meeting requirement as the high school varsity head coach or, in the alternative, they must complete one of seven free online health and safety courses that are posted on MHSAA.com and designated to fulfill this requirement. High school athletic directors must certify each season, three times a year, that all their assistant and subvarsity coaches for that season have completed that requirement.
Also, for the first time in 2014-15, the MHSAA will be posting content for officials that differs from the content for coaches. While coaches are being given a review of select Handbook regulations, for example, officials will be reminded of key elements of effective officiating, regardless of the sport or level of competition.
These new policies are intended to bring more relevant content to a greater number of those who work with student-athletes and to further emphasize risk minimization in educational athletics.
In 2013-14, slightly more than 20,000 coaches and officials completed the MHSAA rules/risk management meeting requirement. The number will greatly exceed 100,000 in 2014-15.
A Backhanded Compliment
April 17, 2012
A year ago this month I listened to the attorney for another statewide high school athletic association pose this question: “Why is it that people quite readily accept inflexible age limitations over a broad spectrum of American life, including sports, but presuppose it is wrong for school sports?”
This attorney was in the middle of a controversy that more recently has visited the MHSAA: an overage student seeking relief from a universally applied maximum age rule. The speaker was perplexed and frustrated by the double standard.
Part of the reason for the double standard rests in the reality that people value the school sports experience so much more than other parts of life, including other sports experiences. Because they want the opportunity to play, they resort to litigation in an attempt to create the right to play.
Another part of the reason school sports is challenged on an issue on which other programs get a free pass is that school sports has a centralized authority, close to home. State high school associations are readily accessible targets, easier both to find and to fight with than most other entities with age restrictions.
And, of course, part of the reason for the double standard is the proximity of interscholastic athletics to academics – the former extracurricular, the latter curricular – the former a privilege for most teenagers, the latter a right of all citizens to age 26.
The reasons school sports are attacked on this issue while other entities are not are reasons really complimentary to school sports: the program is popular, accessible and connected to education. None of these features of school sports, or its age limitation, should change.