• The plain implication of the current sanctioning crisis is that no school which is not a member of its state association can be trusted -- guilty until proved innocent.
• Athletes may miss the opportunity of a lifetime to compete at the fabled Penn Relays unless this mess gets settled soon.
• Who are these people who will deny perfectly innocent youngsters such an opportunity? What is their record? Not a good one, as we shall recount.
• A New York Federation official claims that he is just "enforcing the rule." But what rule? One that violates the constitution in so many ways a lawyer would have a hard time deciding which one to pursue.

by Ed Grant

The present controversy over sanctioning practices of the National Federation and several state associations, notably New York and Massachusetts is simply the latest development in a long-standing situation.

The attitude of the predominant (and, in some cases, total) public school membership of the state associations towards its non-public colleagues has always been somewhat distant, poisoned by the specter of "recruitment.."

Of course, the latter is hardly confined to the non-public element. An old friend of ours, who later played for the Chicago Bears, told us that when he was an eighth-grade junior high school star in Pennsylvania, his father got job offers from a number of nearby communities who were obviously interested more in his son's athletic talents than his own abilities. But World War II came along, his dad got a job at the Kearny Shipyards and he wound up playing for my local public high school.

This is not just past history. There was long ago a crackdown on the job offers, but the latest trick, so we have heard from people in several states, is to provide a special course at a high school so that promising athletes from other districts may attend at no cost without moving.

The choice a student (or his parents) makes when going from elementary to secondary school is, of course, constitutionally sacrosanct, whatever the reason. And the state associations do not have the financial capacity to track down and penalize recruitment, if any, when a student transfers once in high school.

As a result, we have the "athletic advantage" rule which, in effect, makes the transferee guilty until proved innocent, a contradiction of constitutional guarantees. It is also a term which I, for one, cannot accurately define. It would be easy enough if it were the school that was being accused, but what measurable advantage does an athlete gain by a transfer; he/she may well find it a disadvantage in a team sport if going from a weaker to a stronger program.

The plain implication of the current sanctioning crisis is that no school which is not a member of its state association can be trusted. Again, guilty until being proved innocent. And it is really centered on two sports: football and basketball. It has nothing at all to do with track and field. But it is the track and field athlete who is paying the penalty.

contradictions in Boston and New York

Much attention is centered now on a handful of star athletes: the queer situation which finds Chris Barnicle unable to compete this weekend in a race in his own state, while eligible for the Millrose Mile a week later in New York, while Devon Williams can compete in Boston but not in New York even though she will be facing the two New York stars in the Beantown race.

But the stars are not the real victims. They may miss a race or two, but their reputations are so solid by now it will not affect their opportunity for scholarships. This cannot be as comfortably stated about the second level of athletes who need as much opportunities to run against their peers to gain attention.

Penn Relays may be impacted

And, beyond that, there are the simply average (or less) athletes who may miss the opportunity of a lifetime to compete at the fabled Penn Relays unless this mess gets settled soon. I remember well my own son thanking me, years after his high school graduation, for getting the chance to run at Penn in the media 400M relay, something he never had a chance to do as a teenager. There really is nothing like it.

Who are these people?

And who are these people who will deny perfectly innocent youngsters such an opportunity? What is their record. Not a good one, as we shall recount.

The first time I heard of the National Federation was in the early 40's. I don't know how many of you have heard of (or seen) a fan-shaped backboard, but, at that time, they were approved for use by the NCAA along with the standard rectangular ones (which were then made solely of wood). The National Federation went a step further, mandating them in its rulebook. But before, they got into general circulation, a financial tie was discovered between the Federation and the manufacturers of the new board and the rule was quietly dropped.

At that time, NJ was not a full member of the Federation, though it used some of its rulebooks (as we explained last week, that was the chief reason the Federation was created, to write rulebooks for uniformity's sake). That came in the early 50s and with it a flood of new regulations.

Now every sport has rulebooks on the college level and many have a separate one for the pros. In fact, before the Federation produced its own baseball rulebook, any appeal from a high school decision went right to one of the major leagues. If the city had a National League farm team, as did mine, it went there; if an American, to that league.

What about these rulebooks, particularly the one used in track and field.? Are they really necessary? And, more to the point, do they promote good sportsmanship, which is the byword these days---as it should be---of our state associations. I think not.

The high school rulebook provides so many ways to diusqualify an athlete that too many new officials, unfamiliar with the sport, can't help but think that this is their main task, to call fouls, as it is in, for example, basketball. But a basketball player gets five chances before being evicted from a game; a track and field athlete gets just one. And some of the violations are truly ridiculous.

This can lead to situations which incite rather than quell bad sportsmanship. I have two favorite stories on this, one bad, one good. The bad one first: at a dual meet some years ago which was to decide the conference title, the issue went down to the closing 1600R. As the winning girl came across the line, she flipped and caught the baton in a joyful gesture. There was then a flurry of cries from the other camp that she be disqualified for "throwing" the baton. The pressure was so great that the call was made.

The good story: at a major cross country invitational in New York, the winning team was disqualified for a uniform violation. The other coach "accepted" the trophy rather than make a scene on the field, but, when his team got back to school, he called them together and asked: "Is this the way we really want to win a race?" The next day, he quietly took the trophy to present it to the original winner.

All of us are familiar with the routine at the end of a basketball, football, soccer or other team game where the two teams line up and pass each other shaking hands. (One coach in NJ this year got called on the carpet when, fearing trouble if it was attempted, he declined to have his team go through with it.)

It would be laughable to call for something like this at a track meet, even a dual meet. Why? Well, another story: several years ago, there was a heavy, but brief shower just before a meet started, Everyone ducked into the school, the athletes going to a weight-lifting room; the coaches and officials to a garage. When one of the coaches joined us after making sure all the athletes were inside, he said, "In what other sport could you leave two teams together like that and not worry about any problems?"

New York Federation is just "enforcing the rule"

The man at the center of the controversy, New York Federation official Lloyd Mott, claims that he is just "enforcing the rule." But what rule? One that violates the constitution in so many ways a lawyer would have a hard time deciding which one to pursue.

It is, of course, essential in any organization that each member be treated equally. But if my long experience in New Jersey is any indication, this has not always been the case. And ours is among the most "liberal" states in handling these matters.

For example, in the late 40s, New Jersey schoiols passed a transfer rule which would have doubled the penalty for transferring from a public to a non-public school over those who followed the reverse route. This one was so illegal it never went into effect.

Then there was a case in which I was intimately involved. Our first great two-miler of the modern era was almost the victim. While he was winning a 2M at an invitational event at the 168th St. Armory, the basketball coach at his school was refusing to put his team on the floor for the second half because he felt the officials were "jobbing" him.

Now, only a few years earlier, a public school team had walked off the field for similar reasons while taking a 33-0 drubbing and no penalty was assessed. But, in this case, the school was immediately put on probation and told its teams and athletes could compete only in dual situations for the rest of the school year.

This occured only a few weeks before the National (Eastern) scholastic meet at the old Madison Square Garden, where the runner was due to compete in the mile (there being no two mile on the program at the time). Quick action was needed. Fortunately, I recalled what had happened to a another runner when his public school was discovered to have used a talented football player on its freshman team when he was still in grammar school. I checked with him to be sure he had been barred only from the state meet, passed the information on to the lawyer in the case at issue and the problem was quickly solved.

Sportism

And there is also what I call "sportism." For years, as in the case just cited, all sports at a school were affected by a violation in one. But, in 1964, there was the first case where a track and field situation affected other sports; the following December, the association quickly passed a new rule that would have only the offending sport punished.

And then we have the actions of the Federation during the so-called NCAA-AAU feud of the 1960s and 70s. I say so-called because it takes two to make a feud and the AAU had never tried to interfere with the NCAA's control of sports in the major colleges of this country.

The National Federation and the state associations became allies of the NCAA in its crusade, resulting in a number of actions for which there was no excuse. Athletes from all over the country were punished for participating in events which were not sanctioned by their associations, even if those competitions took place during summer vacations. The net almost caught a three-time Olympic gold medalist but, in her case, there was so much furor that the Governor of her state stepped in and firmly told the association to reverse its decision. Not so lucky was a gymnast from the Mid-West whose "crime" was to participate in a Pan-Am junior competition during the summer.

Legal expenses are a sizable part of state association budgets

It is not an exaggeration to say that the associations will adopt rules developed at the annual Federation meeting and moderate them only if forced to do so by the courts.

At one time, the legal expenses of the associations were minimal; they now represent a sizeable part of the budget only because they have reached beyond their original purpose which was simply to provide general guidelines into trying to act, as it were, as an athletic director for every school in the state.

About 20 years ago, another case in which I was involved as a consultant roused enough concern that the acting Governor of New Jersey sponsored a law which required that every rule passed by our association had to be examined by the state Department of Education to be certain that it did not violate the federal constituion, the state constitution or state school law. The association greeted this in typical manner by placing oin the front page of its monthly newsletter: "Now we are official." And maybe that's all that did happen, for the "athletic advantage" law slipped in after that.

However, in the present controversy,as we noted last week, NJ has become a bystander. But the issue swirls all around us and cannot be ignored. For example, there are the three upcoming meets at the NY Armory, all of interstate nature and all sponsored and conducted by one of our coaches' associations.

The Easterns on Feb. 28 crowns this trio and some of the "banned" schools have been regular visitors to this meet. We shall just have to wait and see what happens.