Court Rules that Bad Parents Can be Benched | The Sport Digest

Sorry, but this stuff really pisses me off. We live in a day and age where a story about youth sports contains at least three different legal citings. Good grief!! How in the world did we get here? Sports coaches, officials and administrators -- to say nothing about players -- should really have more important things to worry about in their lives than some of these juvenile shenanigans. Then the landscape doesn't get to this stage -- to say nothing about it deteriorating even further.

Part of the problem is (IMO) that the folks who are most part of the reason these legal citings exist to begin with, do not see this development as a problem at all.

SIMPLY UNBELIEVABLE!!

from The Sports Digest:
Court Rules that Bad Parents Can be Benched | The Sport Digest:

The majority opinion issued by the Court stated in part, “The narrower goals of an athletic team differ from those of academic pursuits and are not always consistent with the freewheeling exchange of views that might be appropriate in a classroom debate. See, e.g., Lowery v. Euverard, 497 F.3d 584 (6th Cir. 2007).

“School officials have a legitimate interest in affording student athletes ‘an educational environment conducive to learning team unity and sportsmanship and free from disruptions that could hurt or stray the cohesiveness of the team.’” Wildman v. Marshalltown Sch. Dist., 249 F.3d 768, 771 (8th Cir. 2001).

There are other cases that have been decided in recent years that assert that a school district’s need to achieve an effective and efficient (i.e., orderly) athletic program for students who choose to play allows schools to condition participation on the acceptance by students and parents of some limitation on certain constitutional rights. 

Courts have ruled that this principle allows governing bodies over high school sports to impose limits on the recruitment of student-athletes. Courts have noted that participation in sports as an extra-curricular activity is a choice. That means it is a privilege and not a right. As such, participants should expect that there will be some rules that might infringe on normal rights.

The Court cited another case where a court held that “Athletic programs may…produce long-term benefits by distilling positive character traits in the players. However, the immediate goal of an athletic team is to win the game, and the coach determines how best to obtain that goal….The plays and strategies are seldom up for debate. Execution of the coach’s will is paramount.” Lowery v. Euverard, 497 F3d. 584, 589 (6th Cir. 2007).

The Court held that by using incendiary language to attack both the coaches and other players, Blasi had jeopardized the interests of other participants in the basketball program.

Anyone working in a leadership capacity with respect to youth sports should be aware of this case. It is an important precedent in establishing limits on how and when a parent can express dissatisfaction with players and coaches. Parents should let their kids play and confine themselves to watching and supporting their sons and daughters.

Readers can find this case online by entering the case citation as an Internet search. The full citation is: William Blasi v. Pen Argyl Area School District; 3rd. Cir.; No. 11-3982, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2095; 1/30/13.

'via Blog this'