MIAA rules and fall practice

[HS Harry]

The MIAA rule in question is rule 45. Basically it says that you cannot miss a high school practice, scrimmage, tryout, game, etc in order to participate in a non-school (e.g. club) athletic activity. Kids can play club sports in any season, and as long as they do not skip the school sport to play the club sport (practice, games, , team meetings, etc) they are not in violation of the rule.

Examples of rules infractions: skipping the last day of a spring sport tryout to play a club soccer game. Telling your HS coach you are sick and can't go to practice and then go to your club activity. The fact that the times of the events may not be the same is irrelevant. Say you are returning from your club soccer game that ran late and you hit traffic---if you miss your high school sport activity , you might, depending on the circumstances, be deemed to have missed it because of the club activity and you are in violation of rule 45.

Violation of the rule carries major consequences to both the athlete and their HS team. 1st offense is a suspension for 25% of the season. 2nd offense is 50% of the season AND ineligibilty from MIAA tournament play. If the school does not enforce the rule, no matter what the reason (even if they did not know about the offense), the team has to forfeit any and all games in which the ineligible athlete played (actual game time or bench time---does not matter). It gets very tricky because what ADs and coaches do is cave in and get MIAA waivers for these "special" club players. But waivers are supposed to be for extraordinary events---super elite competitions that are limited to only the top level of player (like being on a national team). The MIAA seems to give waivers to kids playing college showcase events even when there are 500 teams involved. It's really unfair---coaches should be telling their players, if you can't commit 100% to your HS team, you can't play on this team. I'd rather take a lesser player with 100% commitment

In summary--Sunday club practices are ok as long as the player does not skip HS sports in order to play for the club.

The original purpose of the rule was to limit the ability of teams in individual sports like gymnastics, tennis and swimming from utilizing the phantom athlete. High calibre participants that had little to no interaction with their HS team, except for attendance (and performance) at big meets or events. Over time, the rule has evolved into what we see now, a rule designed to mandate that the HS team is a player's first priority and that a HS player MUST make a full commitment to the HS team. Much like the rule itself, the enforcement and allowance of waivers has evolved. A part of this is because the MIAA really, really fears judicial review of its administrative control over inter-scholastic athletics. Especially when its rules result in some players being denied opportunities to participate. Basically, the increased leniency in granting waivers and the "limited" enforcement of this rule is a result of constant threats (and actual litigation) regarding its validity. So I don't know if you can accuse the current situation regarding waivers as being "unfair". At least not for the reason you cite. The unfairness is that a waiver for a national level showcase (meaning that it is out of state and teams from across the country will participate) will almost always be grated if the player's school supports the application and the application is complete. However, a player from another school (that doesn't support the application) will probably be rejected - or more likely decide not to participate in one or the other. So to a certain extent, the waiver process is being controlled by the local school. Not a bad thing in many folks' minds. But definitely can lead to uneven enforcement. As for violations? The rule is rarely enforced. Personally, I believe that most coaches share the attitude that led to the rule's initial adoption: "better to have a star player on a limited basis - than not at all" So practices are often deemed optional, times are switched to accomodate people and waivers a freely supported. When coaches take a hard line (which is absolutely their choice) they either lose players or have players that lie to cover-up potential infractions. But I don't know of a single instance were a team forfeited games because of a coach investigationg an alleged violation, discoverring an inelligible player and reporting the facts in expectation of sanctions. When there are violations it is almost exclusively handled in-house and there is avoidance of any MIAA involvement. And the MIAA likes it that way.

[Unregistered]

Who is wasting time playing for their middle school? I can understand the situation with the high school team, but middle school???

Actually when I coached HS most of my conflicts came from AAU Basketball and Softball. The coaches deliberately tried to force their players to make a choice between HS soccer and their out of season sports. I never had a problem with club soccer conflicts even though I typically had a half dozen club players.

- Cujo

[Unregistered]

The original purpose of the rule was to limit the ability of teams in individual sports like gymnastics, tennis and swimming from utilizing the phantom athlete. High calibre participants that had little to no interaction with their HS team, except for attendance (and performance) at big meets or events. Over time, the rule has evolved into what we see now, a rule designed to mandate that the HS team is a player's first priority and that a HS player MUST make a full commitment to the HS team. Much like the rule itself, the enforcement and allowance of waivers has evolved. A part of this is because the MIAA really, really fears judicial review of its administrative control over inter-scholastic athletics. Especially when its rules result in some players being denied opportunities to participate. Basically, the increased leniency in granting waivers and the "limited" enforcement of this rule is a result of constant threats (and actual litigation) regarding its validity. So I don't know if you can accuse the current situation regarding waivers as being "unfair". At least not for the reason you cite. The unfairness is that a waiver for a national level showcase (meaning that it is out of state and teams from across the country will participate) will almost always be grated if the player's school supports the application and the application is complete. However, a player from another school (that doesn't support the application) will probably be rejected - or more likely decide not to participate in one or the other. So to a certain extent, the waiver process is being controlled by the local school. Not a bad thing in many folks' minds. But definitely can lead to uneven enforcement. As for violations? The rule is rarely enforced. Personally, I believe that most coaches share the attitude that led to the rule's initial adoption: "better to have a star player on a limited basis - than not at all" So practices are often deemed optional, times are switched to accomodate people and waivers a freely supported. When coaches take a hard line (which is absolutely their choice) they either lose players or have players that lie to cover-up potential infractions. But I don't know of a single instance were a team forfeited games because of a coach investigationg an alleged violation, discoverring an inelligible player and reporting the facts in expectation of sanctions. When there are violations it is almost exclusively handled in-house and there is avoidance of any MIAA involvement. And the MIAA likes it that way.

I never viewed it as an exclusive commitment but I was clear that their HS team was the priority and that practice/games could not be missed to attend another event. The players always understood this and any conflicts came from parents and coaches from other sports. In any case I also made it clear that their commitment wasn't to me or their sport but rather to their teammates and their school. Unfortunately parents and coaches put their kids/players into a Hobson's choice scenario by giving them ultimatums. This is the primary reason why MIAA enforces the rule. Kids have enough burden and pressure and don't need anything additional dropped on their shoulders. Try to remember what it was like juggling sports, school, social life, a job, and family while you were 16. My days began at 530am and ended at midnight.