Logo

Safety First

August 16, 2012

In the final chapter of A Moveable Feast, Ernest Hemingway writes:  “Skiing was not the way it is now, the spiral fracture had not become common then, and no one could afford a broken leg.  There were no ski patrols.  Anything you ran down from, you had to climb up.  That gave you legs that were fit to run down with.”

As motorized lifts carried less prepared people faster and with greater ease and comfort to higher and longer slopes, alpine skiing injuries became more frequent and serious.  Similar patterns can be found in many other sports as technological advancements have taken participants to extremes their physical bodies were unprepared or unsuited for.

The classic but far from unique example is football.  Improvements in helmets, mouth guards and face masks and the requirement of all three for head and face protection, encouraged coaches to teach and players to use blocking and tackling techniques that threatened their unprotected necks.  Catastrophic spinal cord injuries spiked in the early 1970s.  High school football rule makers countered with the prohibition of spearing in 1975, and then barring both butt-blocking and face tackling in 1976.  Certification of helmets was required in 1980.

New technologies created poles that catapulted pole vaulters to unexpected heights in the late 1960s; and high school rule makers responded with new requirements for poles and landing pits in 1975.  Risks of injuries and lawsuits were largely responsible for the pole vault being dropped at least temporarily from the schedule of events in some states.

The pursuit of profits by manufacturers and personal bests by athletes and their coaches will continue to push bodies to the extreme limits of what is safe; and rule makers will push back, often being labeled as out of date or out of step by those they are trying to protect.

Every four years the Olympics shine a spotlight on amazing dedication by athletes and alarming developments in equipment across the full spectrum of sports.  We are watching the 2012 Summer Games in awe of the participants, but on alert that some of the products they are utilizing will help, but others will harm, our high school programs.

We need to be certain that those who arrive at the top of our mountains have the legs to run down safely.

Tougher Rules for Transfers

May 31, 2013

There is an increased sense among the MHSAA’s constituents that it’s nearly impossible to advance deeply into the MHSAA’s postseason tournaments with “home grown” talent; that unless a team receives an influx of 9th-graders from other districts or transfers of 10th-, 11th- and 12th-graders from other schools, success in MHSAA tournaments is rare.

This is the predictable result of several factors, including (1) expanding schools of choice; (2) starving school districts of essential resources; (3) encircling schools with educational options; and (4) increasing dependence on nonfaculty coaches and the related increased profile of non-school youth sports programs.

In light of this, Michigan’s high school wrestling coaches and, more recently, Michigan’s high school basketball coaches, have proposed new rules and/or pled with MHSAA leadership to toughen the transfer rules for school-based programs.

On May 5, 2013, the MHSAA adopted a rule to take effect starting Aug. 1, 2014, that advocates believe is more straightforward than the athletic motivated section of the transfer regulation and is a needed next step to address increasing mobility of students between schools.  It links certain described activities to a longer period of ineligibility after a transfer.  It intends to catch some of the most overt and egregious of transfers for athletic reasons.

Specifically, after a student has played on a team at one high school and transfers to another where he or she is ineligible, the period of ineligibility is extended to 180 scheduled school days if, during the previous 12 months, this student . . .

  • Participated at an open gym at the high school to which the student has transferred.
  • Participated on a non-school team coached by any of the coaches at the high school to which the student has transferred.
  • Has a personal sport trainer, conditioner or instructor who is a coach at the high school to which the student has transferred.

  • Transfers to a school where his or her previous high school coach is now employed.

Unlike Section 9(E), this new Section 9(F) does not require one school to allege athletic motivation.  If the MHSAA learns from any source that any one of the four athletic related links, the MHSAA shall impose ineligibility for 180 scheduled school days.

There may be a large percentage of the MHSAA’s constituents who do not believe this new Section 9(F) goes far enough; that this should be applied to all students, not merely those whose transfer does not fit one of the 15 stated exceptions which allows for immediate eligibility.  That could become the MHSAA’s next step in fighting one of the most aggravating problems of school-based sports today.