Challenging Authority: Who Has the Final Say?

In common with most regulating sports$-$governing bodies, the Illinois

High School Association $($IHSA$),$ the state high school athletic associ.

ation that supervises scholastic athletics in the state, sets limits regard.

ing participation. In wrestling, schools are allowed to take part in

four meets. In early February $1995,$ the IHSA received a report from

a rival school that M$.$C$.$ High, a school with a strong wrestling pro.

gram, had competed in five meets, apparently violating the rules.

Once the complaint was verified, the IHSA ruled that M$.$C$.$ High

was ineligible to compete in the state team tournament.

Bylaw $5\mathrm{.}162($Sports Illustrated, March $6,1995,$ p$\mathrm{.}18-19),$ which gov.

ems participation, does not distinguish between varsity and junior

varsity wrestlers. However, other $($IHSA$)$ "bylaws pertaining to the

minimum number of events required to qualify for a state tournament

specifically mention that those tournaments must be of varsity status"

$($Sports Illustrated, p$\mathrm{.}18).$ In its defense, M$.$C$.$ High argued that it had

sent only junior varsity wrestlers to the fifth tournament. As no var$-$

sity athlete had competed, the bylaw had not been violated since

only varsity events counted.

This line of argument failed to sway the IHSA despite evidence

that other schools had done the very same thing. M$.$C$.$ High was

banned from the state tournament; the original decision stood.

M$.$C$.$ High went to circuit court, sued, and won a decision direct$-$

ing the IHSA to include it in the state toumament. The decision by

the lowest court was taken to the Appeal court where the ruling by

the circuit court was upheld. That decision, in turn, was taken to a

higher tribunal, the State Supreme court, where, again, the original

decision was upheld. Three courts now ordered the IHSA to include

M$.$C$.$ High in the state tournament.

In reaction to the rulings by the three courts, and rather than al

low M$.$C$.$ High to participate, the IHSA suspended, then cancelled,

the tournament for that year.

Questions to Consider for Discussion

$1.$ Was the wrestling coach of M$.$C$.$ High right, and justified, in as$-$

suming that he could enter a fifth tournament using junior varsity

wresters, although there was no specific written exemption for

such behavior in wrestling?

$2.$ How are we to categorize the behavior of the rival coach who re$-$

ported M$.$C$.$ High to the IHSA?

$3.$ Was the IHSA justified in their ruling M$.$C$.$ High ineligible for the state tournament? Can that decision be sustained when we know that other schools committed the very same violations, were reported, yet went unpunished?

$4.$ Was M$.$C High justified in resorting to court action?

$5.$ How do you categorize the behavior of the HSA that cancelled the state tournament?