Logo

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.

Helmet Debate Escalates in Girls Lacrosse

July 2, 2015

Recently the Florida High School Activities Association escalated the girls lacrosse helmet debate to higher levels by mandating the equipment during competition involving its member schools. I’m guessing their hearts are in the right place; but without a recognized performance standard yet established for such protective head gear, there are important practical questions added to the philosophical debate over the efficacy of such a requirement at this time. Here’s what we posted on this topic nearly two years ago.

One of our newest sports – girls lacrosse – is today presenting one of the oldest conundrums in competitive athletics.

On one side of the complex issues are many moms and dads who cite the dangers their daughters confront from contact to the head and face by other players’ sticks or the ball. They want hard helmets with face masks required in girls lacrosse. Many coaches and administrators agree.

On the other side of the issues are the “purists,” including the official position of US Lacrosse, who are concerned that by increasing head and face protection the rule makers would invite the kind of hard and high contact that would fundamentally alter the nature of the game and lead to more serious injuries in girls lacrosse.

This is the classic dilemma that the leadership and playing rules bodies of sports organizations have faced many times over many years for many sports. Justifiably.

When football added helmets, then face masks and then mouth protectors to the list of required equipment, there was a significant reduction in broken noses and chipped teeth, but techniques of blocking and tackling changed. The protected head and face became much more of a target and weapon than it had been before, and the unprotectable neck and spine became more at risk.

Some would argue that ice hockey’s experience is similar to football’s history. The discussion in the soccer community regarding hard helmets for goalkeepers and soft helmets for all other players often revolves around similar questions. Will required protective equipment change the game? And will one of the changes be that the game becomes still rougher and even more injurious, trading “moderate” injuries for more catastrophic?

While the debate continues over additional head protection requirements for girls lacrosse, and other sports, both sides seem to agree that the burden of the rule makers to be out-front in the search for ways to improve the rules is matched by the in-the-trenches responsibility of coaches to teach the game and officials to administer the contests in accordance with existing rules which already place a premium on participant safety.