During the 2025 baseball scrimmage season, I began a new task for my chapter of evaluating my umpire colleagues from the stands.  My job consisted of going to games, sitting in the bleachers, observing the umpires, taking notes, and then submitting reports.  It’s not that bad of a gig to make a little money to watch baseball!
 
On the first day of this new gig, I was sitting in the stands at a local varsity game watching a scrimmage between two parochial schools.  After about fifteen minutes, a father sitting near me (who had been conversing with some other parents near him) turned to me to ask if I was scouting one of the teams.
 
“I’m scouting umpires,” I replied with a smile.
 
“I thought you looked familiar,” he said.  “You’re an umpire, too, right?”
 
“Yes,” I said.
 
“You know where I remember you from?” he asked as I cringed at his poor grammar.
 
“Perhaps an optometrist’s office?” I joked.
 
“Two years ago,” he replied.  “Remember that call you blew against us?”
 
The smile that was on my face from just a simple exchange and my silly joke was gone.
 
I remembered the game in question well.  However, I was not about to go down that road.  I was technically “on the clock” and had a responsibility to represent my organization in public while I did my job.
 
About fifteen minutes later, I had thankfully seen enough of the varsity game and wanted to go watch the junior varsity game.  I wished the fans well and went on my way.  My walk to the other field, though, was not without deep thought.
 
Why would the parent of a teenager still remember one specific play and one specific call in one specific game from two seasons prior?  I’m sure it’s possible the gentleman could have simply had a memory like an encyclopedia and the social skills of a toddler, which explains why he thought it was a good idea to mention it to me in public.  The more likely reason, however, is that this parent was exhibiting something that points to why our mission at OSIP is terribly important.
 
Parents and fans can frequently live so vicariously through their children and their favorite sports teams.  They project themselves onto another person or another entity so strongly that they physically become part of them.  Much like how a fan of a professional sports team might get personally insulted by a call made by an official during a game, a parent can get personally insulted if the same thing occurs in a situation involving their child.
 
In both scenarios, however, the parents and fans neglect one thing:  the sun will still rise tomorrow.  The call made against your kid or your team is not the end of the world.  No official wakes up in the morning with the desire to make a bad call that upsets parents or fans.  There are an infinite number of other things in life that are more important than that one moment in time and that one experience.
 
Why, then, did this parent feel so strongly about this that he had to mention it to me that day?  The possibilities are endless.  Perhaps the pain of that moment was viciously imprinted on his soul.  Perhaps he sought that one opportunity to claim a pound of flesh for something he considered to be an injustice.  Or perhaps the father wanted to demonstrate his status as a wealthy person (since he was probably paying a large sum of money to send his kid to a parochial school) that he felt it was important to let me know that I was a peon compared to him.
 
Regardless of the true reason, the moral of the story remains the same:  sometimes, maybe we should move beyond these moments and see the forest for the trees.

Following the decision that came down from 2021’s NCAA v. Alston, collegiate athletes can now profit from their name, image, and likeness (NIL) as they participate in sports.  This classifies these student athletes as pro-am (professional amateurs) and allows them to earn non-scholarship income across every division of collegiate sports.  The fallout following this decision has left many questions left to be answered, ranging from the tax implications of this earned income to the philosophical question of whether amateur athletics can still exist.
 
Our culture has already had a questionable relationship with collegiate athletics and the concept of student athletes.  Scholastic athletics (at all levels) were designed to be extensions of the classroom and provide a practicum of learning using concepts like competition and teamwork as the catalyst.  Scholarships were offered as compensation for the athletic services of a young athlete; in other words, the school gives the student a free education (and room and board) in return for playing a sport or sports for the institution (and thus growing the reputation of the school thanks to the publicity of having such a talented athlete).  And yet, prior to the opening of the flood gates with NIL monies, fans consumed college sports in ways that went beyond school spirit:  sports like college football and basketball were heavily monetized thanks to the constant national broadcasting of games.  There are now more sponsored college football bowl games than there are teams with winning records.  Media members analyze these games like the participants were veteran professionals and not inexperienced kids.  And the betting and wagering has practically flipped off any remaining statute that claims it is illegal.
 
With this new dynamic in college sports, it’s only a matter of time before society comes to its senses and realizes that the principles of amateur athletics have dissipated into oblivion.  One might imagine that these student athletes pay no attention to their studies or other scholastic responsibilities regarding their education.  But the gun-slinging will get even dirtier once institutions and collectives discover their limitless amounts of money that can be used to persuade a student athlete to transfer from one school to another on the promise of more compensation.  Unlike professional sports, we currently do not have contracts or salary caps to govern the business of these pro-am athletes, especially under the guise of higher education.
 
However, the pinnacle of this monstrosity resides at the top of the individual athletic departments that oversee these programs.  When athletic directors become as boisterous as the rowdy fans in attendance and forget their primary responsibility as the adults who are responsible for the education of these kids, it’s easy to see how college athletics have fully mutated into a bastardized minor league affiliate for the professional sports they feed.
 
Take Mark Harlan as an example.  The athletic director at the University of Utah, he came under fire when he made public comments about the officiating during a football game between Utah and BYU at the end of 2024.  The comments referenced how Utah’s loss was the result of the game being “stolen” due to calls made by the officials.  The Big 12 promptly fined Harlan $40,000 for his remarks.
 
A few months later, Kirby Hocutt became the next poster child.  The athletic director at Texas Tech, he made public comments about the officials’ decision to eject one of his star players from a basketball game due to a flagrant foul that did not appear to be intentional.  Hocutt’s comments did not appear to be as demonstrative as Harlan’s, which explains why there was no news regarding a hefty fine.  However, it doesn’t negate the fact that Hocutt felt it was necessary to make public comments about a call in a college basketball game that could have been kept private instead of looking to discredit the officials in the game.  (By the way, he made the comments publicly while the game was still happening.)
 
The question is not whether the person at the top of the hierarchy can hold or express an opinion normally reserved for a fan.  The question instead concerns the fact that the people at the top of the hierarchy might have forgotten their prime responsibility in the equation:  to steward the education of student athletes through the medium of sports, and thus setting the example for the players, coaches, parents, and fans to do the same.  Sports at all levels and in all forms come with tough breaks, and the lessons to be learned from them concern the athlete’s ability to overcome them, not to complain about them.  It’s no coincidence that the athletic directors have resorted to this behavior in a culture where the money in college sports has become weaponized.  After all, maybe a star athlete would be easily persuaded to take more money at another school if his ego gets hurt when the athletic director tells the student athlete to respect the officials, the coaches, and the other adults in the room.
 
Obviously, these two examples are not the sole times that athletic directors at colleges have spouted off in ways that draw negative attention or fines.  But they are two very recent examples in a world where college sports have become a new business filled with potential mercenaries.  In a capitalist society where social influencers, athletes, and other celebrities can (and have the right to) garner more attention and wealth than the hard-working people who grind each day to earn a living and provide for families, the least these administrators can do is temper their overzealous fandom and put their blessings in perspective.  However, the opposite may be more disastrous:  not acting inappropriately could result in the loss of future stars, sponsorship monies, and one’s job.
 
What’s more important:  the morals or the money?

As 2025 kicks into gear, I frequently find myself reflecting on how 2024 ended in terms of sportsmanship and competition.  Whether it was the presidential election or some of the stories that swamped the world of sports, I wondered how things would be if situations were different.  In each scenario, what if the shoe were on the other foot?  Or what if just one little detail were different?  How would that change the perception of the incident?
 
Regardless of who won and lost as well as how it happened, we can be sure of one thing:  the polar extremes representing each side have become twisted and deranged because we tend to believe that the loudest voice is the victorious voice.  What is interesting, though, is that it appears the loudest voices have a strategy that might overlap with collective bargaining:  shout the loudest and speak the most extreme opinions while tacitly being comfortable with gaining only a fraction of the demands met.  If we use a sports analogy, kick the ball as far downfield as possible, but be content if it is returned a few yards so long as it’s out of our end of the field.  For example, pick any political election this century that has national implications and watch how the rhetoric of the ads and debates will include obtuse statements and ludicrous proposals; however, the sole goal of these ads is the same as if a campaign was run without them:  that one political party wins an elected seat.  In other words, feel free to say whatever ridiculous sentence so long as doing so gets the vote of the people and your candidate elected.  If it’s twisted or somehow false, let the public do the homework to come to that conclusion; the odds are that they won’t, and we’ll have them believing whatever we want.  After that, it doesn’t matter what will happen because we won, they lost, and we prevented our opponents from being in control.  (What’s sad, though, is that we are currently living in a time one might argue that we don’t really know what is true, and it’s equally difficult to discover the truth.)
 
Similarly, watch any legal drama to see a lawyer in a courtroom pose a statement or a question to someone on the witness stand that is a blatant step out of bounds in the trial process.  The statement or question will most likely be immediately withdrawn if the opposing attorney objects or if the judge recognizes it as inappropriate.  The rules of the game might have rectified a wrong, but the human jury still had the seed planted that could discredit the witness and sway a vote.
 
This has occurred frequently in labor negotiations in sports.  During the lockout that preceded the 2022 MLB season, both Rob Manfred (MLB Commissioner) and Tony Clark (head of the MLBPA) would frequently find themselves in front of a microphone speaking to the media spewing statements with an altered tenor to sway the opinions of the public with the goal of creating an intangible pressure on the opposing side to cave in their demands.  It was a classic example of pulling out all the stops in an extreme way just to help negotiate a compromise.
 
Perhaps the explanation for these tactics might include the fact that doing things the moral way isn’t yielding the desired results, leading the participants to believe they must fight fire with fire.  “We tried playing nice, but it wasn’t working, so now we must play dirty.”  But fighting fire with fire only results in a bigger mess.  Like many issues in the world of sportsmanship, the only true solution is to make the individual choice to do the right thing.  We may not be able to control the actions of those playing the game, but we can control our own responses to those actions.
 
During the 1960 US Presidential Election when Kennedy defeated Nixon, footage from a Presidential Debate showed both Kennedy and Nixon calmly complimenting each other while informing the audience that both candidates deeply cared for our country, wanting it and the people of the nation to prosper.  The difference, according to the candidates, was in the methods of how to achieve the same goal.  Fast forward to a more recent debate of your choice and watch the exact opposite happen.  Amplified volume and finger pointing have replaced civil discourse, exploiting the extremes through fear and threats to convince constituents that one candidate is the savior, and the other is the devil.
 
And what if this phenomenon were examined in sports?  On the heels of what occurred following the annual college football game between Ohio State and Michigan, what if a state senator from Michigan introduced a bill to make flag planting at midfield a felony instead of a state senator from Ohio?  What if Ohio State had won on its own field and planted its own flag before the same state representative introduced the same bill in Ohio?  Would the extremists on the opposing side still be calling them sore losers?  Does it matter that Ohio State, the losing team in this specific contest, went on to compete for a national title while Michigan did not?  The slightest change in detail changes the entire situation, which shows why it may be better to pull the lens back and see the forest for the trees rather than jump on an extreme bandwagon.
 
Do we have the individual ability to become vulnerable and consider the thoughts and opinions of our opponents without endorsing them?  Doing so does not mean we agree with them; rather, it means that we are trying to understand why they feel the way they do and to see if there are any commonalities.  After all, we are still free to disagree with our opponents after we hear what they have to say.  But making the slightest alteration to how we individually formulate opinions may yield positive results. 
 
The solution (as well as the truth) is usually somewhere in the middle.  Whether the topic is trans athletes or immigration, I’d wager that a compromise could be found if we took the time to listen to each other rather than discrediting our opponents and vociferously shouting our own opinion.

In the spring of 2024, a colleague handed me a book entitled “Good Sports,” published about ten years before the turn of the century and written by the late Rick Wolff, a sports psychologist who many in the greater New York area would recognize from his radio program on WFAN.  While reading the book, Wolff referenced Mel Narol, an attorney from Princeton, NJ, whose specialty was representing sports officials who were assaulted on the field.  Seeing how OSIP’s home is just outside Princeton, I took it upon myself to learn more about Narol.
 
Unfortunately, I learned that Narol passed away in 2002 at the age of 51 from a heart attack.  He is buried in a cemetery in my hometown.  I tried to reach out to his daughter who is around my age and attended a private school near my public high school, but the lead went cold.  I had hoped to interview his daughter or some of his colleagues on our podcast to learn more about him.
 
Narol championed a large list of professional accomplishments.  He officiated basketball and served as legal counsel to collegiate athletic conferences while also teaching collegiate law.  He was highly involved with the National Associated of Sports Officials and wrote for Referee Magazine.
 
The law firm where Narol worked was a local one that had sponsored teams in my youth baseball league when I was young.  At the time, the name of that team was just a passing sound of names that happened to represent a company of lawyers who appeared no differently than all the other lawyers in the area.  Little did I know years later that I had been in the presence of the name of the firm that employed a man who would be so crucial to my desire to see aid given to assault victims who simply wanted to officiate an athletic competition.
 
Why did Narol do what he did?  And why was it so important for him to do so?  I began to ask myself these questions and pretend that I could answer them on his behalf.  I started with the obvious:  if you’re a lawyer, you’re probably practicing law in some capacity to earn a living.  But a man who has such a love of sports and officiating probably saw an opportunity to combine his passions and make an immense difference, especially when innocent people are wronged by the physical assaults of others stemming from a youth athletic contest.  From there, word of mouth and a media presence probably accelerated things, turning Narol into the go-to for these victims.  It may not be a glamorous rise to stardom, but it is a path to becoming a respected professional and important member of society.
 
There’s something trite about the archetype of a mystery where an investigator digs deep into the past of someone deceased looking for information or answers about why something occurred.  I felt like I was living that plot while constantly searching for information about Narol, but I knew I wasn’t trying to solve a mystery.  Instead, I just wanted to learn more about him and his work, like a student who becomes obsessed with a historical figure.
 
There was no ‘whodunnit’ payoff on this journey.  Rather, by the time I composed this post, I was left with an emptiness of regret that the opportunity to know this man had passed many years prior.  I wondered if the people I sought wanted privacy, as if I had opened an old wound; the possibility of that left me with guilt, as it was not my intention to do so.  I wondered if those people didn’t take me seriously, like the work of our organization was not a battle worth fighting anymore.  It was more than likely that life just got busy for these people.  Even so, however, I was left with questions, not answers…and many of those questions lacked the ability to even be formed.
 
I’m not sure it’s appropriate to call the words of this submission an obituary or a eulogy.  I’m also not sure that anything I can say here does this man or his work justice.  I just wish Mel was still with us so I could learn more about who he was, what he did, and why he did it.  He would have made an excellent member of our board of directors.

“Your trivia questions are too hard.”
 
“I don’t agree with that answer.”
 
“I don’t like this prize.”
 
“I think the team over there is cheating.”
 
“What do you mean that you didn’t give us points for that answer?”
 
“I didn’t like your joke.”
 
“Why’d the restaurant change the menu?”
 
Guess how many times I’ve heard these sentences while hosting free trivia nights for OSIP.  (I don’t even have control over the last one!)
 
The overwhelming majority of the time, the regulars who attend OSIP’s free trivia nights are fantastic.  They’ve helped us build a community of people who understand our cause and why we fight for our mission.  I guess I just don’t understand the few times when people say the things they do (like the statements above).
 
Would you believe we’ve had to develop a rules sheet for trivia and distribute it to each team’s table?  Would you believe we’ve had to amend it a few times because the rules have to keep being updated due to new situations we encounter?  Free trivia sponsored by a sportsmanship charity shouldn’t be this difficult!  It’s amazing to me how seriously people take these free trivia nights. 
 
Here's a sample of what has been added to our rules sheet:
 
-Do not use electronic devices such as your phone to research answers.
 
-Don’t shout the answers out.
 
-Do not name your team with an inappropriate name that promotes bad sportsmanship.
 
-Do not approach the host with your phone claiming you have the correct answer.
 
-Be positive and supportive.  Cheer for your team, not against other teams (or boo people).
 
-Be supportive of the venue hosting trivia.  Purchase food and drinks.  Tip the staff 20%.
 
I’d like to believe that some of these items fall under the heading of common sense, but I’m sure not everyone would agree with me on this.

The part that gets me the most frustrated is the part that I will have to frequently quote directly from the rules sheet.  When a team violates one of the rules listed above, I must remind the entire room that every person present is here of their own volition.  Nobody forced them to attend, and it was free to play.  This usually gets people to relax and laugh at themselves, but every now and then, it’s the nail in the coffin to ensure that someone’s not coming back next week or next month.
 
Again, I love hosting trivia.  I love the regulars who come and play.  And I love championing our message through this gentle and simple application of good sportsmanship.  I guess I just wish more people were more cognizant of these things like I am.
 
I don’t understand the teams that don’t order food or drinks when they come to play.  People will nurse a glass of water for the evening, then they’ll depart without leaving gratuity for the server who kept refilling their water.  They treat the waitstaff like servants who are simply supposed to take care of them and shouldn’t expect to be tipped appropriately.
 
I don’t understand the teams that don’t come back because they think the questions are too hard.  They take pride in their ignorance and believe they aren’t having fun if they’re not getting the answers correct.  Rather than consider the option of inviting more friends to join them next time who might know the answers, they immediately succumb to defeat and decide it’s not worth their time to return.
 
I don’t understand the teams that treat the waitstaff like garbage, especially when the restaurant is overwhelmed.  I’ve witnessed some servers resort to tears because of the attitude of customers, and I wish that I never had witnessed the few times that guests were asked not to return to an establishment over that.  It makes me feel bad because it becomes a reflection on OSIP because people can’t separate the establishment hosting trivia from the nonprofit providing it.  (What could even be worse is when people don’t realize they’re treating people like garbage!)
 
I don’t understand the teams that cheat.  I had a team cheat once by sitting in two different locations in a restaurant so they could have one table pretending to not play trivia and look up the answers and then text it to the table that was playing.  Now, I purposefully include questions that are nearly impossible to ensure that people aren’t cheating.
 
And I don’t understand the venues that have discontinued trivia services and blamed us when we have so many success stories.  Some venues fail to advertise, then wonder why people don’t come out to play trivia.  Some venues have poor employee morale or just a terrible product, setting the event up for failure before it even starts.  Some venues are micromanagers, seeking to tweak the trivia product or rejecting it due to the slightest difference of opinion.
 
However, I still love doing it.  And I hope that the trivia regulars who read this understand how passionate I am about our cause, our mission, and our programs.
 
I hope you can make a resolution for 2025 to be a part of the solution as we redouble our efforts to treat others the way we would wish to be treated, especially in the arena of competition.

As I was contemplating what a non-sports fan could discuss, I came to the realization that poor sportsmanship doesn’t have to be limited to organized professional and amateur sporting events. 

I am not a sports fan.  I don’t play sports, I don’t watch or listen to sports, I don’t attend any sporting events, and when someone starts talking about sports, I try to make a hasty exit from the room.

What do I like?  Reading.  I love physical books, e-books, and audiobooks, which is why I embrace the concept of the Little Free Libraries.  These are small boxes located in front of private homes where books people no longer want are donated and other people “borrow” those books.  But when book bandits come by and take all the books to resell, that is poor sportsmanship.  They are not partaking of the shared experience; instead, they are depriving the community to earn a quick (and miniscule) buck.  This leads people to take drastic measures to prevent this from continuing, such as blacking out the bar code on the back of the book, stamping the book with “Little Free Library, Never Sold, Always Shared”, and installing cameras.  How sad that there needs to be repercussions for book thievery.

Think of the other similar examples that can happen on the front porch or lawn of a home.  There are stories of political signs on lawns that are stolen, vandalized, or even destroyed when cars drive onto lawns to smush them into the ground, all due to differences in political opinion.  Halloween brings about the worst of people when the honor system is used to leave candy outside the door, only to have treats dumped into one person’s bag, leaving nothing for anyone else.

There are undoubtedly more examples of poor sportsmanship that do not involve sports.  Can you think of some?

The recent tragic deaths of NHL All-Star Johnny Gaudreau and his brother Matthew on a rural road in southern New Jersey at the hands of an apparent drunk driver have triggered an outpouring of grief from the hockey community, the sports world at large, and politicians in both the United States and Canada.  For many fans, this served as a stark reminder:  the superstar athletes we watch, support, criticize, and praise are, at their core, human beings.

Growing up in Carneys Point, New Jersey, Johnny and Matthew were giants in the South Jersey hockey scene before leaving to play at Boston College.  Following graduation, Matthew played in the minor leagues for several years before becoming a coach.  At the time of his death, he was the head coach of the hockey team at Gloucester Catholic High School, the alma mater he shared with Johnny.

While at BC, Johnny won the Hobey Baker Award, the college hockey equivalent of the Heisman Trophy, before signing with the NHL’s Calgary Flames.  Over eight seasons in Calgary, he racked up impressive individual numbers, won the Lady Byng Trophy for sportsmanship in 2017, and placed fourth in league MVP voting in 2022.   He was named an NHL All-Star in six of his eight seasons while playing for the Flames.

After the 2021-22 season and with an expiring contract, Johnny faced an important decision.  He was a highly coveted free agent, and many wondered whether he would stay in Calgary or seek a fresh start elsewhere.  In the end, Johnny took a pay cut to sign with the Columbus Blue Jackets, a move that left many fans confused, incredulous, and even angry.  Calgary Flames fans were upset that he had left for what they perceived to be an inferior team.  Despite writing a heartfelt letter of thanks to Calgary, Flames fans showered him with boos the first time he touched the puck upon his return as a visiting player.

Hockey and money weren’t the only factors influencing Johnny’s decision to leave Calgary, a place he once called his “second home.”  He and his wife agreed that Columbus, Ohio, would be a great place to raise a family.  Further, they wanted to be within driving distance of their parents and siblings (especially after Johnny and Matthew’s father, Guy, suffered a heart attack in 2018).  Like anyone else switching jobs or moving to a new city, Johnny and his wife had to figure out the best overall fit for their family.

On August 29, 2024, Johnny and Matthew Gaudreau were pronounced dead at the scene of their accident after being struck by an alleged drunk and aggressive driver while riding their bikes near their parents’ home in New Jersey.  They had returned to their old stomping grounds because they were supposed to be groomsmen for their sister’s wedding scheduled for the next day.  Tributes from around the world flooded the news and social media.  Fans of the Flames and Blue Jackets made makeshift memorials outside their respective home arenas.  People who knew the two brothers spoke of their good character, noting how they were both great teammates and friends.  Hockey fans, many of whom had chastised and mocked Johnny’s free agency decision just two years prior, came together to pay tribute to two men who, by all accounts, made everyone around them better people.  Suddenly, all the talk of free agency, career stats, wins and losses, good teams versus bad teams, etc., seemed meaningless.

Johnny left behind a wife and two children, while Matthew was set to become a father for the first time in a few months. A GoFundMe page was set up to support Matthew’s wife and their soon-to-be-born son, and it far surpassed the initial goal of $30,000.  To add to the heartbreak, Sean Monahan, Johnny’s former teammate and best friend from his days in Calgary, recently signed with the Blue Jackets largely to reunite on the ice with his friend.  Now, that reunion will never happen.

It can be easy to get caught up in the fantasy of professional sports and to see athletes as pieces of a puzzle or tradable commodities.  It’s natural to feel frustrated when a team you support fails to acquire a big-name free agent, and it’s easy to feel angry when the face of a franchise leaves for what they see as greener pastures.  But we must remember that these athletes are first and foremost people.  They’re just trying to do what’s best for themselves and their families.  Hopefully, it doesn’t take another tragedy to put this into perspective.

The way people have come together to pay tribute to two brothers has been touching.  These were great men who just happened to be great hockey players.  But while we honor the dead, let’s also be respectful of peoples’ choices while they’re living.

One of the most controversial events at the 2024 Paris Summer Olympics was the women’s gymnastics floor final.  Due to judging errors and ensuing protocols, third place scores have changed several times, and the bronze medal has changed hands.  Regardless of where the blame truly lies, our 24/7 news cycle (improperly) demands decisions are made and information is disseminated without proper attempts to cross-check facts.  This highlights everyone’s responsibility to act in good faith and recognize that humanity is bound to make mistakes.
 
Romanians Sabrina Maneca-Voinea and Ana Maria Barbouso found themselves in the middle of the controversy with American Jordan Chiles.  To summarize, Voinea was both penalized for something she didn’t do while also having a separate appeal for her difficulty score denied.  Barbouso’s score should have left her earning a bronze medal.  And Chiles’ score was appealed for difficulty, leading to a score increase and winning bronze ahead of Barbouso.  However, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) overturned Chiles’ appeal and awarded the bronze medal to Barbouso.  In short, three separate athletes all felt they could have walked away with a bronze medal:  one who was improperly penalized and wonders what could have been, one who won the bronze and had it taken away, and one who thought she had it, then didn’t, then won it.
 
Throughout this time, people have taken to their keyboards and launched attacks at literally everyone who was a part of this decision.  The athletes have continued to show great sportsmanship to each other and organizations during this time, encapsulated by a quote from Barbouso following her reception of the bronze:
 
“I can’t help but think about Sabrina and Jordan right now.  It’s a difficult situation for us, with so many uncertainties and overwhelming emotions.  I hope everyone understands that we have not done anything wrong at the Olympics, and that the Olympic spirit is more important than any misunderstanding between authorities.  I want to believe that the day will come when all three of us will receive a bronze medal each.”
 
At the end of the day, the athletes must respect the decisions of the officials.  Whether all three women get a bronze medal, or it stays with Ana Maria Barbouso, we can take this time to decide how we construct our conversations and guide it to the positives of sportsmanship rather than the negative nature that we see so often.  We should be mindful and decide to build people up rather than break others down.

Beginning with the 2024-2025 scholastic athletic year, the New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Association (NJSIAA), in conjunction with the state’s Department of Education who oversees them, will require all sports officials working high school sporting events to complete a one-time implicit bias course to be eligible to officiate.
 
The requirement is the result of a memorandum of understanding following an incident in late 2018 when Andrew Johnson, a teenage wrestler from New Jersey, was informed during a high school state tournament by referee Alan Maloney that he would be ineligible to wrestle with his dreadlocks intact.  The incident and resulting fallout have gained significant momentum in the public eye for various reasons.
 
For the unattuned, implicit bias (in layman’s terms reflective of this discussion) is the assumption that humans can have subconscious prejudices against certain groups of people which may dictate their actions.  The training in question is supposed to serve the purpose of educating people about this fact, which would cause said prejudices to surface from the subconscious and allow evolved thought to attempt to prevent stereotypical bias from occurring in the future.
 
It is important to note that the purpose of this post is not to argue in favor of or against the validity of the science supporting implicit bias.  Further, the purpose of this post is not to offer commentary on the Johnson-Maloney incident pertaining directly to the motives of the involved parties and the resulting fallout.
 
Rather, the purpose of this post is to examine two explicit arguments that pertain to the incident that are not being addressed because the loudest voices in society have not reported on them.
 
First, the interpretation and the application of rules of NFHS (National Federation of State High School Associations) wrestling as they applied during the season in question were never dissected by the public in a manner that allows any exposition to show up on the first few pages of an Internet search.  High school wrestling rules explain what is legally allowed on the head of a wrestler in terms of hair; at the time, the interpretation of this rule noted that hair should not come down to the length of a normal collared shirt, nor should it have any adornments that could be hard or sharp.  A wrestler could wear an approved hair cover or net that was attached to the wrestler’s headgear if the hair was too long.  (These rules have since been updated as the landscape of wrestling evolved.)
 
Many high school sports have (or had) similar rules due to safety, an equal playing field, and the desire to avoid any potentially litigious situations.  For example, NFHS baseball and softball had jewelry rules that prohibited players from wearing any jewelry unless it was a medical or religious adornment (and those adornments must be taped down to the body and cannot otherwise be a safety issue).  These rules were in stark contrast to the rules that governed Major League Baseball, where any jewelry was permitted unless it was found to be a distraction (such as a diamond earring in the ear of a pitcher that would glisten in the sun as a pitch was being delivered).  As kids are apt to emulate their idols, student-athletes would wear jewelry on the diamond (no pun intended) that ranged from plastic wristbands to the most expensive gold chains, and umpires were informed they had to be the “bad cop” in these situations.  (These rules have since been rescinded and only pertain to whether the jewelry poses a safety risk or contain messages directed negatively towards others.)
 
Regardless of the sport, NFHS rules interpretations (and those further adopted by each state association) would instruct sports officials to enforce these rules.  Officials would simply do their job by adhering to the rules prescribed for their sport(s), but the other parties involved (players, coaches, parents, fans, media) would use this as ammunition to criticize the officials.  The governing bodies rightly assumed that they were protecting players from dangerous situations while also protecting themselves from the throngs of people with itchy trigger fingers waiting to slap a lawsuit on anything that moves the wrong way.  However, they did not foresee these results where an overly sensitive society would react with aggression and vitriol instead of a reasonable request to revisit the subject.
 
One of the biggest evolutions of these interpretations stemmed from the procedure that officials were instructed to use when these situations arose.  When an athlete wore something that would classify as a violation of these rules, the common refrain coming from the official would be, “I’m not saying you have to take it out/off, but you can’t play with it in/on.”  This was a legally approved way to place the responsibility of making the decision on someone other than the official, protecting officials from cases of bias like the one in question.
 
Officials have been conditioned to apply these blanket statements for years.  Prior to most high school athletic contests, officials are required to ask coaches if all participants are “legally and properly equipped and will remain so throughout the duration of the contest.”  This covers items ranging from bats and sticks to protective cups, and it legally releases the officials from liability because the coaches have certified that the players will play by the rules.  Specific to the state of New Jersey (although it is mirrored in many other states), officials must also read a sportsmanship statement to the teams that states “there will be no tolerance” for any unsporting acts related to “race, gender, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, or religion.”
 
However, consider the method in which interpretations and protocols are relayed to the officials who are to enforce them.  If we use Major League Baseball as an example, MLB will directly teach changes and updates to the 76 full-time umpires without any middleman.  These umpires (whose livelihood and employment revolve around officiating) have bountiful resources to constantly study and as well as failsafe methods to get the call right (such as being able to call the replay review center for a check of the rules in unique situations).  A lack of execution to follow these rules may result in disciplinary actions or umpires not receiving playoff assignments.  By contrast, if the NFHS has changes and updates, they must teach it to the states; the states then teach it to the chapters; and the chapters teach it to the officials.  (States may also have the option to adopt rules specific to their state, which means that officials must learn both national rules and state rules.)  A lack of execution to follow these rules for high school umpires (who do not umpire full-time) holds nowhere near the consequences that professionals hold.  If it sounds like a giant game of “telephone” where something could go wrong, that’s because it is.
 
A common rebuttal to the realization that these “middlemen” could create the problem is to eliminate them and require the officials to report directly to the state (or other governing body).  The problem is that these officials are not invested in their jobs to the same extent as full-time officials who make their living officiating.  The average local high school umpire who is lucky to make $100 per game is more likely to leave the chapter (and the craft of officiating) and find something else to do than to adhere to the changes.  Eliminating the unnecessary vessels of information and overhauling the system doesn’t present an advantageous cost/benefit ratio yet when the world is already lacking sports officials in all capacities.
 
This predicament begs the question of determining which is more important:  having able bodied humans present to officiate sports (because without officials, it’s just an exhibition or scrimmage) or doing whatever it takes to prevent any potential litigation that stems from a misstep, intended or not?  In other words, in the worst-case scenario, would you rather have an official who doesn’t meet expected standards, or would you rather have no official at all?
 
Circling back to the Johnson-Maloney incident, and considering the above thoughts, it is entirely possible (due to the lack of public information) that Maloney’s response to Johnson’s hair was akin to, “I’m not saying you have to cut your hair, but you can’t wrestle with it as is if you don’t have a legal covering.”  When asked what would happen if Johnson didn’t wrestle, perhaps Maloney cited the rule that the match would be a forfeit, and perhaps he did it in a way that came across as amateur or crass instead of professional or courteous.  It is also entirely possible that Maloney was properly enforcing this interpretation without prejudice, but in doing so, he may have inadvertently highlighted the possibility that every other official assigned to Johnson’s contests throughout the season did not enforce this rule properly for whatever reason.
 
But if that’s the case, then why would all the other officials not enforce this rule on hair length?  Does that mean that the wrestling officials in the state of New Jersey are collectively ignoring a rule?  Did they unionize and band together to protest injustice?  The more likely answer might be one of the following:  that the officials simply didn’t know the interpretation; they were taught incorrectly; or the officials didn’t deem the issue to be as egregious as Maloney did.  In these state tournaments (where the Johnson-Maloney incident occurred), officials from other chapters within the state are frequently used to ensure balance and fairness and eliminate any potential bias.  An official who has never officiated a contest between two schools that season and comes from a different part of the state probably has no bias to see one team defeat another.
 
If it turns out that an entire chapter of officials (a chapter to which Maloney did not belong) were simply unaware of the rule or were incorrectly taught about it, then Maloney was wrongly vilified in a situation where miscommunication is to blame, not bias.  Instead of immediately concluding that Maloney is racist, why wasn’t an investigation launched into why it is so difficult to get rules enforced, regardless of whether they are good or bad?  Or why wasn’t an investigation launched into what other officials had done at Johnson’s prior matches?  Granted, as we may never truly know Maloney’s intentions, we cannot say that these viewpoints are mutually exclusive.  Instead, perhaps we are simply noting that countless possibilities and reasonable doubt exist as to what truly occurred, why it occurred the way it did, and what can be controlled in the future.  If that’s the case, then punishing Maloney and imposing new training on all officials is a gross overreaction and should be replaced with something more appropriate.  (And don’t forget that the most readily available information to the public does not easily provide pertinent information that might be classified as objective; the immediate results of searches for information contain articles and posts, opinionated or not, that either state little or immediately vilify Maloney.)
 
And what of the other people who play the roles in sportsmanship?  If this rule was “on the books” and the interpretation was in fact correct, then why is it that the wrestler, the coach, the parents, the fans, and the media had never heard of this prior?  At the very least, it is the full responsibility of the coach to know this rule and have his wrestler prepare accordingly.  To knowingly ignore this rule is irresponsible, and to not know the rule is ignorant.  When the coach affirms that his wrestlers are legally and properly equipped and will remain so throughout the remainder of the contest, he is stating that the wrestlers will adhere to the rule on hair and releasing the officials from liability.  In fact, many coaches have weaponized the threat of, “No other official has ever enforced that!” to try to gain an advantage, even though officials have enforced rules in question constantly.
 
To mandate implicit bias training because an official applied a rule in a sport when reasonable doubt pertaining to his motive is evident and that ambiguity and/or inconsistency within the confines of the spirit of a rule may exist seems to be a knee-jerk overreaction that forces conformity and “covers the ass” of governing bodies who wish to avoid litigation.  It’s a bandage, not a remedy.
 
The second argument that needs examining is that the demand for officials to take implicit bias training suggests that the NJSIAA (and the powers that oversee them) want to ensure a fair playing field so that no prejudice can affect the outcome of an athletic contest.  (It also doubles down on the fact that they don’t want to be sued.)  However, prioritizing implicit bias in this manner shows that the state does not prioritize a more common bias:  general decency.
 
It is widely (and wrongly) accepted that sports officials are the common enemy among all parties.  The stereotype implies that they are to be equally despised by all competitors, coaches, parents, fans, and media members, regardless of rooting interest or affiliation.  (Just look to social media during televised games to watch the names of the officials start to trend when calls don’t favor one team or appear to be consistently incorrect in the eyes of the unattuned.)  This attitude manifests itself in arguments and other conflicts that create bias, yet has nothing to do with race, gender, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, or religion.  In other words, how many times does an official have to be berated by a coach or a fanbase before the official thinks, “I don’t want to do this anymore?”
 
Amateur officials go into contests all the time with implicit biases because of this treatment.  It is a psychological defense mechanism that warns of potential danger.  The little voice in the mind of the official is whispering, “Last time you were here, the coach treated you like garbage.  Be careful.”  But rather than seek to educate players, coaches, parents, fans, and the media on this, the NJSIAA and the State of New Jersey has chosen to prioritize other biases.  It’s like they’re saying the officials don’t matter.
 
Once again, this is learned behavior that emanates from watching idols.  When a Major League Baseball manager gets ejected and gets nose-to-nose with an umpire while seething with heated anger (think the late Earl Weaver of the Baltimore Orioles), it sends a message that this petulant behavior is accepted and expected.  No thought is given as to whether normal mature commoners should act this way; it becomes part of the rote cycle that dictates human behavior.
 
In most cases at the professional level, officials and coaches are taught to put those situations behind them after the game and start anew the next day.  No apologies are warranted, even if the coach, after being ejected, calls the umpire the dirtiest and most insulting names known to man.  The next time they see each other, it’s like it never even happened.
 
Except for one thing:  that’s not normal.
 
What healthy relationship thrives when the parties continue to skirt an issue?  Instead, those relationships deteriorate and can result in situations that were avoidable if vulnerable communication was used.
 
The same applies to the humans who officiate when others treat them so poorly.  It’s no wonder that the number of sports officials in the world is exponentially decreasing:  they’re finally realizing they don’t have to be treated in a particular way and remove themselves from those bad situations and relationships.
 
However, the NJSIAA has determined that keeping lawsuits to a minimum is more important than preserving the number of sports officials actively working.  Mandating implicit bias training has the potential to drive more officials away, especially when the average age of these officials is quite old and correlates to people of a different time and generation who may disagree with the tenets of implicit bias.  That’s not an endorsement of anything:  it’s just reality.
 
There’s an old saying in officiating:  “Do what’s right, not what’s easy.”  Officials are keepers of the flame, charged with the mission of upholding the rules that govern their contests.  They will undoubtedly face conflict when disagreements or unfavorable judgments occur.  They wage moral battles big and small when faced with making the correct call even though it may cause outrage worthy of coverage on the evening news.  They are vilified in the same way that martyrs are:  think of how unpopular Jesus, Ghandi, and Jackie Robinson were when they were on the scene.  But Jesus, Ghandi, and Jackie Robinson are lauded, whereas sports officials are on the receiving end of prejudice.  Maybe the world needs implicit bias training to learn about the proper way to treat officials.

Bullying is a pervasive issue that affects many youths and adults.  It is not reserved just for kids in school:  bullying may be one of the most critical antagonists in the story of good sportsmanship because it is the antithesis of following the golden rule.  As someone who has personally experienced bullying, I understand the impact it can have on one's self-esteem and overall well-being.
 
Growing up in a Chicago suburb, I felt I was surrounded by a concoction of affluence and arrogance.  Many of my peers came from privileged backgrounds and often used their status to belittle others.  Not only did I contrast because I came from a middle-class family, but I was the only non-athlete in a family of sports enthusiasts:  my mom was a former cheerleader; my dad was a former football player; one sister was a soccer player and cheerleader; another sister was a softball player; and my brother was a football player.  My interest in the arts contributed to the experience of feeling isolated in an environment where bullying felt corrosive, leaving me to find solace in the seclusion of my studies and at libraries.  However, this took a significant toll on my confidence and made me dread going to school each morning.  Ultimately, I ended up transferring schools my junior year because I had not yet developed essential skills such as emotional resilience, conflict resolution, or effective coping strategies.
 
Today, over ten years later, I have finally learned the power of positive reinforcement, problem solving, boundaries, empathy, and respect thanks to my experience in the workplace.  The value of good teamwork, collective effort, and sportsmanship demonstrates that in life, as in sports, how we treat others truly matters:  the workplace (which, in theory, is the adult version of school) runs much smoother if we are encouraged to support one another, celebrate each other's successes, and lift each other up during tough times.  This environment of mutual respect and encouragement was a stark contrast to the bullying I faced in high school.  How ironic (but not surprising) that this dynamic mirrors the formula that helps breed success in sports!
 
Overcoming bullying, both on and off the sports field, is not easy, but with the right support and environment, it is possible.  In fact, sports can play a pivotal role in the process of eliminating bullying, providing a safe space for children to grow, learn, and mature.  Unfortunately, according to recent data from Jersey Watch, the sports participation rates for youth ages 6-17 declined by 6% between 2019 and 2022, translating to 1.2 million fewer youth regularly playing team sports within this age group​​​​.  Also, around 70% of kids in the USA stop playing organized sports by age 13, citing reasons such as burnout, pressure from overly competitive parents, ineffective coaching, or simply that the sports are no longer fun​​​.  As such, using youth sports as a catalyst to overcome bullying becomes more and more rare when the number of participating kids declines this rapidly.
 
As the entity of sports has been said to mirror life, it’s no surprise that bullying has the potential to be the same destructive force in both sports and life.  However, it becomes even more sad when bullying in sports negates the power that participation in sports might have to help overcome bullying in life!  Such a phenomenon highlights how imperative it is that we at least reverse the trend to end bullying in sports; perhaps fighting that good fight will result in a move to end bullying overall.