Quote:
Originally posted by WestMichBlue
Now can you make an argument on the above points that ASA rules are not more punitive , and/or are a better answer than NFHS for youth sports?
WMB
|
Yes. To this point only, the Fed has no choice.
Any open youth sport association is voluntary by nature. The player has the option of playing where and when they please. The coach is not a paid employee of the sponsoring association, thus has limited, if any, liability toward the player's welfare off the field. Thus, a player and/or coach may be ejected and asked to leave. Unless there is a provision in that association's (team's, not sanctioning body) that places the coach in a liabilous situation, they've got to go. If there is a provision to hold the coach responsible, then that organization can chose to replace the coach with anyone in a game situation and the ejected player can leave with a parent or guardian. They are not bound by the law holding school liable for the student's welfare.
When dealing with high school ball, the sponsoring association (school) is liable, by law, for any child under their charge any time that individual is on the property (including real estate, transportation device or area secured for an event) or taking part in a sponsored activity. Hence, the rules must be in line with those responsibilities or the school could not conduct their athletic events under their code.
IOW, the rules cannot dictate that a child be sent away from the required supervision of an adult recognized by the school as the responsible party. In turn, the same applies to the coach as the rules cannot deprive the team of the required supervision. This is why a coach cannot just leave the field and let some parent or fan take over for him/her.