Female athlete has teeth knocked out by male player

[Wiltony]

Yeah this would be a non-issue if the headline read "One hockey player has teeth knocked out by another hockey player" but we're all up-in-arms because of the loaded headline. Similar to the purposefully incensing headlines that need to point out the races of everyone involved in any police interaction.

 

[sam_gordon]

Yeah this would be a non-issue if the headline read "One hockey player has teeth knocked out by another hockey player" but we're all up-in-arms because of the loaded headline. Similar to the purposefully incensing headlines that need to point out the races of everyone involved in any police interaction.

I agree, if it wasn't for a biological male playing on a girls team, this is a non-story. But since that is the case, I think it IS worth discussing.

 

[TAX GUY]

Let us hope that the massive lawsuit filed by the injured girl's parents against the male player's family and the school district shuts down this sort of thing going forward. It seems that paying out massive sums is all that the school district's seem to understand.

Law suit for what? And don't student athlete's and parents sign a liability waiver before they're allowed to participate?

There is no case here.

As for the original story, what if the male player identifies as a female and chooses to play? Is there a difference then? If the sport is deemed to only be for girls, what about those that identify as... ?

 

[sam_gordon]

Law suit for what? And don't student athlete's and parents sign a liability waiver before they're allowed to participate?

There is no case here.

As for the original story, what if the male player identifies as a female and chooses to play? Is there a difference then? If the sport is deemed to only be for girls, what about those that identify as... ?

I don't think liability waivers would cover someone's negligence.

So, was the school board, the athletic association, coaches, etc negligent in allowing a biological male to play?

 

[EACarlson]

Let us hope that the massive lawsuit filed by the injured girl's parents against the male player's family and the school district shuts down this sort of thing going forward. It seems that paying out massive sums is all that the school district's seem to understand.

The injured player and her parents would have had to sign the waiver in order for her to play indemnifying the school, league and state in case of injury. In the case of MA, it is a Constitutional right for the male to play on a female team if there is no male team.

OK? I'm not saying Title IX isn't/wasn't necessary.

I'm saying there are girls versions of sports (basketball, softball, soccer, etc) SPECIFICALLY because boys are physically different. I don't think biological males should be allowed to play on designated "girls" teams.

That's fine if it's a sport where both options are available. It's been the standard just about everywhere for as long as I can remember that girls have been allowed to play on boys' teams if there was no girls' team. MA has a constitutional amendment that says the reverse must also be true. To the best of my knowledge there is no boy's field hockey team anywhere in the country.

 

[dcassetta]

And for many, without sports, college wouldn't even be an option.

OT from the OP, but, less than 8% of high school athletes go on to play sports in college, and the majority of those are not on athletic scholarships. It is really tough to get a full ride just for athletics.

 

[declansdad]

Let us hope that the massive lawsuit filed by the injured girl's parents against the male player's family and the school district shuts down this sort of thing going forward. It seems that paying out massive sums is all that the school district's seem to understand.

Sue for what? Playing the game?

Filing lawsuits for everything is not the answer and only increases the price of amateur sports.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I agree, if it wasn't for a biological male playing on a girls team, this is a non-story. But since that is the case, I think it IS worth discussing.

I think you will like this, Sam. (I realize it’s a bit older. If anyone from PA has updates, please let us know!)

https://www.pennlive.com/patriotnewssports/2010/12/mythbuster_legally_speaking_bo.html

Mythbuster: Legally speaking, boys can be kept off girls' field hockey teams​

Mythbuster:

Those who support boys being allowed to play on girls’ field hockey teams often cite Title IX as a reason to support their claim
. As the argument goes – if Title IX guarantees equal opportunity in sports for both genders, and if qualified girls are allowed to play boys sports, then keeping boys off a girls’ team constitutes reverse discrimination, correct?

Wrong.

According to Stephen Ross, director of Penn State’s Institute for Sports Law, Policy and Research, this line is thought is unsubstantiated by law.

ROSS:

“Title IX in the sports context, is not an individual rights-thing. … Under federal law, you can have girls’-only teams in order to promote the strong public policy in favor of giving girls an opportunity to participate in sports, which they would not have if all sports were unisex. Once you accept that policy that you can have girls-only sports, it logically follows that you can keep boys from playing on those teams. …

“The boys’ hockey player who can’t play boys’ hockey [because it’s not offered], and the boy who was the last guy cut from the boy’s basketball team, but would [by ability] probably be the best guy on the girls’ basketball team, are in the same position – neither gets to participate in those interscholastic sports at their school because the issue is whether their gender as a whole is being provided with opportunities, not [whether] they as a person get equal opportunity.”

Seems like PA has some very different rules than MA when it comes to field hockey and other sports.

https://www.pennlive.com/patriotnewssports/2011/10/boys_to_have_their_own_field_h.html

Looks like there have been some recent updates:

PIAA changes gender rules​

The PIAA has overhauled gender rules for boys' and girls' teams, making it nearly impossible for boys to play on girls' squads but safeguarding and possibly expanding opportunities for girls.​

Under the new rules, a boy may play on a girls' team only if the school's principal determines four things: The boy wouldn't displace a girl from the team, the boy wouldn't increase the risk of injury to opponents because of his size, the boy wouldn't provide a significant competitive advantage, and the overall sports program at the school provides fewer sports opportunities for boys than girls.

Interesting take on it.

 

[sam_gordon]

The injured player and her parents would have had to sign the waiver in order for her to play indemnifying the school, league and state in case of injury.

I'm not a lawyer, and am staying at a Hilton, not a Holiday Inn Express, but I wonder if those waivers would hold up if it can be proven that someone (person or group) was negligent.

In the case of MA, it is a Constitutional right for the male to play on a female team if there is no male team.

More in a moment...

That's fine if it's a sport where both options are available. It's been the standard just about everywhere for as long as I can remember that girls have been allowed to play on boys' teams if there was no girls' team.

I think you would have a hard time finding a rule keeping girls from boys teams, regardless of whether there's a girls team or not. Got a stud girl basketball player? Put her on the boys team. I don't think there's anything stopping you. The boys teams are basically "open", meaning anyone can play. USUALLY boys will be better than girls when it comes to physical events.

MA has a constitutional amendment that says the reverse must also be true. To the best of my knowledge there is no boy's field hockey team anywhere in the country.

Personally, I disagree with that amendment. I'll take your word that that's what it says.

 

[sam_gordon]

Under the new rules, a boy may play on a girls' team only if the school's principal determines four things: The boy wouldn't displace a girl from the team, the boy wouldn't increase the risk of injury to opponents because of his size, the boy wouldn't provide a significant competitive advantage, and the overall sports program at the school provides fewer sports opportunities for boys than girls.

I like that. I would add (as if I have the power) that opposing coaches need to "sign off" well before the competition.

 

[sasywtch]

I just do not understand why people think this is ok once they get past 6th grade. Why not just let girls/women take steroids? I was on the volleyball and tennis teams in high school and those boys could spike that ball a lot harder than us women could, they could hit the tennis ball harder than we could. We all knew this, everyone knew this. Why is this being ignored today just so we don't offend someone? There are statistics out there how much harder men can throw/hit balls, hockey pucks etc than a biological female. Regarding little league, since the demise of bobbysox, there have been a lot of girls playing little league. Been in it from 1980-now (kids and grandkids). I have yet to see a girl go past 12 (into the senior league). My granddaughter played up until 12. Whether it's due to realizing they don't have the strength, now being into boys, maturing or just the attitude of boys, could be why. I may offend someone but if you have a jockstrap in your locker, you play on the boys team.

 

[declansdad]

I just do not understand why people think this is ok once they get past 6th grade. Why not just let girls/women take steroids? I was on the volleyball and tennis teams in high school and those boys could spike that ball a lot harder than us women could, they could hit the tennis ball harder than we could. We all knew this, everyone knew this. Why is this being ignored today just so we don't offend someone? There are statistics out there how much harder men can throw/hit balls, hockey pucks etc than a biological female. Regarding little league, since the demise of bobbysox, there have been a lot of girls playing little league. Been in it from 1980-now (kids and grandkids). I have yet to see a girl go past 12 (into the senior league). My granddaughter played up until 12. Whether it's due to realizing they don't have the strength, now being into boys, maturing or just the attitude of boys, could be why. I may offend someone but if you have a jockstrap in your locker, you play on the boys team.

In this situation, it wasn't about not offending anyone. There was no boys team for him to play on so he was allowed to play on the girls team.

 

[EACarlson]

I'm not a lawyer, and am staying at a Hilton, not a Holiday Inn Express, but I wonder if those waivers would hold up if it can be proven that someone (person or group) was negligent.

I think you would have a hard time finding a rule keeping girls from boys teams, regardless of whether there's a girls team or not. Got a stud girl basketball player? Put her on the boys team. I don't think there's anything stopping you. The boys teams are basically "open", meaning anyone can play. USUALLY boys will be better than girls when it comes to physical events.

Personally, I disagree with that amendment. I'll take your word that that's what it says.

You are correct, you can't waive negligence, but how is one going to prove negligence by a preponderance of the evidence? You can't use a decision to allow boys to play, they are constitutionally required to allow boys to play. It'd would be a hard sell in not requiring helmets as they are not required at any level I am aware of for the sport. Unless there is a rule stating that helmets with facemasks can not be worn, I don't see a path to victory here.

Whether there is anything stopping you is dependent on the laws and regulations where you are. In MN, you are not allowed to have a female on a male team if there is a female team. Or at least you were not when I was in high school in the last millennium, in that scenario your "stud" basketball player would still have to play on the girls team. Sports that didn't have female equivalent teams girls were allowed to play on boys' teams. I competed against girls in football and wrestling.

I'm torn on the amendment. I view it as true equality, if you're going to allow girls on boys teams, what could be more equal than allowing boys on girls teams. But I'm also realistic enough to understand what is going to happen. Eventually boys will take over some girls sports, or at the very least make it so you have to have some to compete at a high level.

 

[Jennasis]

Be an equestrian. It's a sport where your gender doesn't matter and gives no advantage (for horse or rider).

 

[jimmymc]

It's always a risk, and the reason I wear a full cage when I play ice hockey. IDK if there is an equivalent for field hockey.