I’m still reading that old Rostrum. In addition to Smilin’ J’s pack of lies, there’s an article on independent entry in tournaments. Very amusing issue, I think.
The hoo-ha begins with the Legion of Doom’s platform plank advising that tournaments accept no independent or unchaperoned entries, warranted essentially by liability issues. The Rostrum article contends that these liability issues are chimerical, and that the banning of independent unchaperoned entries is discriminatory.
My oh my oh my… Fortunately for the VCA, there’s a backstory to all of this. Aren’t you glad you’re one of us?
Let’s start at the very beginning (a very good place to start). I annually run one invitational as tournament director, plus half a dozen or so Mid-Hudson League one-day tournaments. These all ban independent, unchaperoned entries. Additionally I am an officer in the NYCFL, which holds virtually weekly tournaments, and which likewise bans the unchaperoned.
Why? Good question. I will offer reasons only from personal experience. Twice I have participated at tournaments where students were removed from the premises on gurneys, headed for the local hospital, because of serious medical ailments. On too many occasions to count I have participated at tournaments where students have, for one reason or another, found themselves in the appropriate rest room (if we’ve been lucky) vomiting, bleeding, or generally having a rough go of it, again for medical reasons. And I’m going to share something with you. When I am running a tournament, I tend to be a little, shall we say, busy. Distracted, you might suggest. And I know from experience that there can be a medical emergency at any time, totally unforeseen, requiring instant action. When I am supervising my own team, I take on that responsibility for them myself. That’s part of the deal. But when I am running a tournament, I need to have someone else carry that responsibility for all the other teams that are in attendance. I can’t take on that responsibility. I’m too busy. I’ve got other things to do. But if there is no responsible adult on hand with a team, then it would become my responsibility.
What part of no way, Jose, don’t you understand? Do you think there is any argument under the sun that will convince me to take on the responsibility for unchaperoned minors when I have other responsibilities that I must concentrate on? I mean, in the middle of a tournament I should stop whatever I'm doing to find out why little Johnny Independent is having at the porcelain in the boy’s room? I don’t think so. But if there were no adult there with little Johnny, I would have no choice. Mandated adult supervision is, therefore, a no-brainer.
But why does an adult have to be 21? Wonderful question. And I'm not going to bother to answer it. We all have blocks about measuring maturity with birth certificates on both sides of the question, but at the point where society makes that determination on the far side of 21, so do I. If I don't know you, using the normative age of maturity as a gauge that you are mature in a situation that may call for maturity is a pretty straightforward decision on my part. I won't even bother to offer evidence that college students may, as a group, not be mature. Maybe where you come from they do all spend their free time in prayer and meditation. That would be nice.
Why else don't I accept unaffiliated entries at my tournaments? The article further claims that these entries are the result of finances, or bureaucracy, or policy, and not indicative of a lack of support for the traveling students. This is true. Most of the time. It does not, however, cover situations where students in probationary/disciplinary situations have lied to their schools, to their parents, and to the tournaments they are attending, in order to attend those tournaments. How many of these incidents would I have to itemize to make my case?
And while I don't consider this a voting issue, the article actually pleads that forcing a parent to accompany a child may put that parent in the unfortunate position of having to judge rounds! Oh, the abomination. The horror. I am appalled at the thought.
One thing I do agree with is that I see no reason why students can't travel under the aegis of other schools. I have transported students from other schools, and other coaches have transported my students. Full chaperone responsibilities have been taken in these situations, which have been approved in advance by the tournaments to which they've gone. And I do allow students to come to my tournaments chaperoned by adults other than their parents or their own (perhaps non-existent) coaches. I am willing to deal. Still, in the cases where I might have questions of legitimacy of a team, I have asked for confirmation from the school. On the other hand, in cases where I know the individual chaperone who may be under 21, and it is someone who has proven their maturity to me in the past, I waive that qualification. I have even allowed students who have come with a parent to hire a judge, when they've claimed that their parent was unable to judge (because of language). I'm not an ogre. Or at least I'm not an ogre on this issue, when I have no reason to be.
But come on. Would any adult seriously accept the responsibility for unchaperoned children at a tournament? Or accept the possibility that a student might be attending against a school's specific wishes for that student or its general policies? These are not negotiable or arguable in any way, shape or form. Argue that tournament directors work with legitimate independent entries to enable participation? Any day of the week. Argue that tournament directors should put themselves in a position that could undermine their careers? Not on my watch.
But there is another side to this particular coin. I know you want me to flip the old nickel and tell you.
Next time.
No comments:
Post a Comment