Logo

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.

Stacking

December 19, 2014

Many in the interscholastic tennis community of this state have complained for years about the unethical practices of a small number of coaches who “stack” their lineups so that their better players compete in lower flights to increase their chances of success in advancing and earning points for their teams.

The current meet scoring system, which fails to reward teams for placing players at the highest levels, invites the problem. Appealing to personal integrity works with most coaches, but not all; so the issue of stacking festers, and it frustrates many coaches.

Hearing this pain, in 2009 the MHSAA convened a group of tennis coaches to discuss stacking. We utilized a paid professional facilitator. One obvious outcome was very little support to solve the problem by restructuring the tennis meet scoring system to disincentivize stacking.

The simple solution – to modify the meet scoring system to provide more team points for Number 1 singles than Number 2, and for Number 2 more than Number 3, etc. – was a double fault with the clear majority of the coaches assembled in 2009.

Of course, simple solutions rarely are so simple. And with this scoring system solution comes the likelihood that stronger teams move even further out of reach of their challengers. Other critics are uncomfortable with giving one student-athlete a higher potential team point value than another.

If those and other objections are the prevailing sentiment, then a new scoring system won’t be in our future. And stacking still will be.