(Grayed areas indicate updates as of 12/14/06)
Answer: In response to the findings of the 2003 NCAA National Study on Collegiate Sports Wagering, NCAA president, Myles Brand, announced the formation of a national task force to further analyze the study's results and recommend strategies to counteract sports wagering among student-athletes. The task force divided into three subcommittees: Awareness, Education, and Treatment Subcommittee, Compliance and Policy Subcommittee and Law Enforcement/Coalition Building Subcommittee. The Compliance and Policy Subcommittee recommended that the language in Bylaw 10.3 be changed in an effort to clarify the legislation and make it easier to read and understand by athletics administrators and student-athletes. The subcommittee also felt that chancellors and presidents, faculty athletics representatives and other athletics department staff members should be included. Furthermore, the NCAA Sportsmanship and Ethical Conduct Committee also reviewed and approved the changes to Bylaw 10.3.
Question: Why is the NCAA national office staff not included in the list of individuals bound by Bylaw 10.3?
Answer: The national office staff has been prohibited from betting, legally or illegally, on sports competitions since 1997 when Bylaw 10.3 was implemented as office policy. The rationale behind the policy is that the NCAA staff may have inside information (and would know before the general public) regarding the eligibility of a student-athlete to participate in an upcoming game, contest or date of competition and this information could affect the outcome. Therefore, staff members may not:
· Provide information to individuals involved in or associated with any type of sports wagering activities concerning intercollegiate or professional athletics competition;
· Place a wager of any type with any individual or organization on any intercollegiate or professional team or contest;
· Participate in any sports wagering activity that involves intercollegiate or professional athletics through a bookmaker, a parlay card or any other method employed by individuals involved in sports wagering activities;
· Participate in a pool or fantasy league where there is an entry fee involved;
· Solicit a wager on any intercollegiate or professional team or contest; or
· Accept a wager on any intercollegiate or professional team or contest.
This policy also prohibits
staff members from organizing a tournament-bracket contest in the national
office, regardless of whether money is involved. The proposal language does not identify
national office staff members because the gambling prohibitions applicable to
national office staff members are a national office human resource department
policy outlined in the national office employee handbook.
Question: Why change the language in Bylaw 10.3?
Answer: The current gambling bylaw needs to specifically define those individuals who are covered under the bylaw and clearly state the activities that are expressly prohibited. Given the serious consequences (e.g., ineligibility, loss of employment) for violating this bylaw, it is imperative that this rule be concisely worded and easily understood by the membership.
Furthermore, adding the chancellor or president and faculty athletics representative to the list of persons precluded from participation in gambling activities ensures that the rule is uniform in its application. Student-athletes, coaches, administrators, faculty athletics representatives and chancellors and presidents will all be unequivocally subject to the clearly expressed rule.
Question: Would the proposal prohibit athletics administrators, coaches, conference and NCAA staff from participating in "friendly wagers" while competing in a round of golf outside of an institutional practice or competition?
Answer: No. The proposal would not prohibit any of
the individuals covered under Bylaw 10.3 from participating in "friendly
wagers" outside of institutional practice or intercollegiate competition
due to the fact that these outings would not be considered amateur, professional
or intercollegiate practice or competition. However, the NCAA would discourage individuals
from engaging in this type of activity.
Question: Why aren't athletics administrators and coaches included in the legislative sanctions found in Bylaw 10.3.2?
Answer: The
sanctions identified in Bylaw 10.3.2 relate to the student-athlete eligibility-reinstatement
process and describe only the eligibility implications for involved
student-athletes with eligibility remaining at the time a violation is
discovered. Institutional
administrators and coaches are subject to sanctions through the NCAA enforcement
process, not the student-athlete reinstatement process. Under the enforcement process, specific
penalties for violations of NCAA rules by an institution, coach or
administrator are not legislated within the applicable bylaw; rather, all
administrators and coaches involved in violations of Bylaw 10.3 are subject to
a variety of penalties, including but not limited to, those penalties
identified in Bylaws 19.5.1 and 19.5.2.
As with all other violations of NCAA rules, the specific penalties for
administrators and coaches will be determined by either the NCAA Division III Committee
on Infractions or the secondary infractions staff, based on the specific
circumstances of each case.
Question: Why is
institutional practice included in the proposal?
Answer: Under current legislation, it would
be permissible for a student-athlete to bet on practice sessions. For example, the staff is aware of many
instances whereby golf student-athletes will bet during practice rounds and it
is has not been a violation of Bylaw 10.3 unless the student-athlete's wagering
also involved intercollegiate athletics competition. This proposal would clarify the mixed
message that is currently being sent to the student-athletes, coaches and
administrators by confirming that wagering on intercollegiate athletics
practice and competition is impermissible.
Answer: No. Although this proposal does not require
an AED to be accessible by the certified individual, the NCAA Sports Medicine
Handbook guidelines state that AEDs have become a common, safe and effective
means of reviving persons in cardiac arrest. An AED should be considered as part of
your sideline equipment. However,
CPR should never be delayed while searching for an AED. For more information about AED use on
campus, please review the NCAA Sports Medicine Handbook Guideline No. 1d at www.ncaa.org/health-safety. Further, Division III institutions should note that they may request
funding for an AED through the Division III strategic initiatives grant program
operated through Division III conferences and the Association of Division III
Independents.
Question: If the institution performs an
updated medical history and determines that a student-athlete needs to undergo
additional exams, is the student-athlete required to get the medical exam
before initiating athletics activities?
Answer: Yes. If a medical physician determines that a student-athlete needs additional medical examinations before initiating participation in athletics activities based on an updated medical history, the student-athlete must undergo the additional medical exams and be cleared by the treating medical physician first before participating in athletically related activities per Bylaw 17.02.2.
Question: How long
should institutions retain a student-athlete's medical documents?
Question: Why do medical exams and medical-history updates need to have been conducted within six months of the student-athlete's initial participation in athletics activities each academic year?
Answer: Since college students typically attend school away from their parents/legal guardians and their personal physicians, a medical examination prior to initial intercollegiate athletics participation is warranted. A student-athlete's medical history changes over time and the closer the exam is to the start of his or her initial intercollegiate athletics participation, the more accurate the information. The medical examination should ideally be performed at least six weeks prior to the start of the activity to allow time for treatment and rehabilitation of identified ailments. Six months prior to the student-athlete's participation in the traditional or nontraditional segment has been identified as the limit to allow institutions the flexibility to accommodate larger numbers of student-athletes arriving for fall semester. Although not required per this proposal, institutions may still want to inquire about a student-athlete's health status between the medical examination and start of athletics participation.
Question: Do different sports require different types of medical exams?
Answer: No. Regardless of the sport or sports in which the student-athlete will participate in, the review of a student-athlete's medical history and physical exams should direct the treating physician to more specific exams and follow-up testing, as warranted.
Question: Do male practice players need to complete
a medical exam and/or medical history before initiating or continuing their
participation?
Answer: Yes.
Question: What athletically related activities count toward the eight-hour limit of athletically related activity?
Answer: Division III Bylaw 17.02.1.1 defines athletically related activities that are required, monitored or directed by athletics staff. These athletically related activities would count against the eight-hour limit. These athletically related activities include, but are not limited to, on-field practice and competition activities, film review, chalk talk, conditioning activities and required weightlifting. Transportation to and from the athletics field or facility is not considered athletically related activity and would not have to count against the eight-hour limit, assuming no other athletically related activity is occurring while in transit. For example, time spent by a coach conducting chalk talk with student-athletes while on the team bus would be considered an athletically related activity that must count against the eight-hour limit. However, if no athletically related activity occurs while an institution's team is traveling to a competition or practice site, the time used for transportation would not count against the eight-hour limit.
Question: Do the eight-hour limit of
athletically related activities and the competition-specific limits represent
an overall limit applicable to an institution or do these limits apply separately
to each of the institution's teams (e.g., varsity, junior varsity, freshman)?
Answer: Per a Division III official
interpretation (reference: 4/13/06,
Item No. 4), the eight-hour limit and the competition-specific limit for the
one date of competition in the nontraditional segment represent one overall limit
for the entire institution and all of its student-athletes in that sport. For example, if your institution sponsors
varsity and junior-varsity men's soccer, any athletically related activities by
any men's soccer student-athlete from any of your institution's teams will
count toward the eight-hour athletically related activity limit. Further, any competition time used by any
men's soccer student-athlete would count against the 180-minute competition
limit in soccer. Therefore, if a
few of your institution's junior-varsity men's soccer
student-athletes practice passing drills for 20 minutes, those 20 minutes would count against your institution's overall eight-hour limit of athletically related activity. To maximize the athletically related activity and competition-specific limits, institutions should ensure as many student-athletes in the same sport are participating in athletically related activities at the same time.
Question: Does an institution need to adhere to official playing rules for competition activities during the one date of competition in the nontraditional segment?
Answer: No. The institution has discretion to set up any modified format of competitive activities at its discretion and does not need to adhere to sport playing rules per Division III Bylaw 17.33 (playing rules). For example, a soccer team could participate in six 30-minute seven-on-seven scrimmages (i.e., 180 minutes of soccer competition activity) to increase the competition opportunities for all soccer participants so long as the time used for those scrimmages counts toward the specified competition time limits.
Question: Do the eight hours of athletically related activities need to be consecutive?
Answer: No. An institution may split its allotted eight hours of athletically related activities into two or more separate sessions provided all athletically related activities on that one date do not exceed eight hours. For example, an institution could split its one date of competition into two sessions: four hours of athletically related activities in the morning; and four hours of athletically related activities in the afternoon, so long as the overall amount of athletically related activities does not exceed eight hours. During a break between these two sessions, student-athletes may be involved in nonathletically related activities such as having a meal, getting medical or training attention or otherwise recovering from the first session without these activities counting against the eight-hour athletically related activity limit, provided no other athletically related activity, per Bylaw 17.02.1.1, occurs during this time.
Question: How were the time limits for competition activities determined?
Answer: The NCAA Division
III Playing and Practice Seasons Subcommittee, on behalf of the NCAA Division
III
Question: Does a student-athlete's time spent in the training room rehabilitating an injury count as an athletically related activity?
Answer: No, unless the student-athlete is involved in other athletically related activities (e.g., strategy discussion, chalk talk, etc.) while he or she is receiving medical attention per Division III Bylaw 17.02.1.1.
Question: If this proposal is adopted, will the NCAA
Division III Interpretations and Legislation Committee recommend a modification
of wording to the proposal to the Division III Management Council to clarify
that the baseball and softball innings must be regulation innings (i.e., three
outs per inning) and that the volleyball competition may be limited to three
regulation matches or 15 regulation games?
Answer: Yes.
Effective Date: August 1, 2007 (contracts signed before September 23, 2006, to host tryout camps may be honored).
Question: Does this proposal preclude institutions from renting out their athletics facilities to any third-party camp or clinic operators and regular club or high school competition?
Answer: No. An institution may continue to rent out its athletics facilities to any third-party-operated camps or clinics at the institution's going rental rate provided the third party is not operating a camp, clinic, combine or workout devoted to agility, flexibility, speed and strength tests of prospective student-athletes. This proposal is specific to events that are devoted to conducting traditional combine tests and drills like 40-yard dashes, bench presses, shuttle runs, vertical jumps and similar agility, flexibility and strength tests for the primary purpose of assessing a prospective student-athlete's athletics ability. "Team camps" and "showcases" are still permissible for institutions to host per this proposal provided that, in addition to competition activities that occur at these events, practice programming or instruction also occur and the event is open to any and all entrants to satisfy the criteria in camps and clinics legislation per Division III Bylaws 13.12.1.1.1 and 13.12.1.3. Further, institutions may continue to rent out its athletics facilities for regularly scheduled high school, two-year college, prep school or club competition currently permitted per Bylaws 13.11.3.2, 13.11.3.4 and 13.11.3.5.
Question: May an institution or an outside entity conduct a camp or clinic that emphasizes instruction and practice programming and also include a short segment on agility, flexibility, speed and strength tests?
Answer: Yes, pursuant to Division III Bylaw 13.12.1.1.1, agility and other testing may occur within an instructional context at any camp or clinic provided the camp or clinic is devoted to instruction and practice programming. For example, instructors at a baseball or softball camp could clock the speed of pitches thrown by camp participants to facilitate instruction on the participants' pitching mechanics and dangers of overthrowing.
Question: May an institution rent out its facility to a professional sports organization that conducts a tryout that includes prospective student-athletes in which agility, flexibility, speed and strength tests are conducted?
Answer: No. For example, your institution could not host a Major League Baseball tryout that includes agility, flexibility, speed and strength testing of prospective student-athletes (e.g., students who have started classes for grade nine).
Question: May a third-party camp operator hold permissible activities on a Division III campus and hold agility, speed and strength testing off your campus when all activities are considered part of the same camp?
Answer: No. An institution may not host portions of a noninstitutional camp on its campus when portions of the camp are devoted to agility, speed and strength testing, even if these activities occur off the institution's campus.
Effective Date:
Question: What eligibility certification is required for male practice players?
Answer: Current regulations require that all male practice players, regardless of how often they practice with a female team, have their eligibility certified in the exact same manner as a traditional student-athlete, including completing all required compliance forms (e.g., student-athlete statement, drug-testing consent form), confirming full-time status for practice and confirming remaining semesters or quarters left on their 10-semester or 15-quarter eligibility clock.
Question: Does the proposal's limit of one practice per week require that each male practice player may attend only one practice per week or that once any male practice player has participated in a practice the limit has been reached?
Answer: The latter. Female teams may only use male practice players in one female team practice per week. The institution should determine the calendar week (e.g., Sunday to Saturday) that applies to using male practice players similar to how institutions set calendar weeks for the declared playing and practice season.
Question: Do these regulations apply to female practice players on male or mixed teams?
Answer: No, this proposal is specific to male practice players practicing with female teams.
Question: If half of a starting unit in a sport is not a whole number (e.g., five and one-half practice players allowed based on an 11-player starting unit in soccer), do you round the number up or down for purposes of determining the maximum number of male practice players that may be used at any one time in that sport?
Answer: An institution shall round this number down to the next whole number. For example, in soccer which has a full starting unit of eleven, the permissible number of male practice players in a female soccer team's practice would be five.
Question: Is there any limit on the number of male practice players that can be used in individual sports?
Answer: This proposal only establishes a numerical limit on the number of practice players used in team sports. Coaches in individual sports are not restricted as to the number of male practice players they use. However, coaches in individual and team sports must adhere to the other male practice player regulations (e.g., one practice per week with male practice players).
Question: Is it permissible to use male practice players for more than one practice per week during a vacation period that falls within the traditional segment since student-athletes are not required to take a day off from athletically related activities during official vacation periods?
Answer: No. This proposal does not include an exception for male practice players to participate in more than one practice per week during official vacation periods.
Question: May an institution conduct the first half of a practice in the morning for two hours and the second half of practice in the evening and have male practice players participate in both sessions?
Answer: The intent of this proposal is to limit male practice players to one practice session per week. Therefore, an institution that conducts multiple practice sessions in one day may only use male practice players in one practice session.
Question: Do male practice players use seasons of participation when practicing with a female team?
Answer: Yes. Per Division III Bylaw 14.2.4.7, if a male practice player practices on or after what would have been their first opportunity to compete for the female team, the male practice player uses a season of participation in the equivalent male sport per amateurism regulations. For example, a male practice player practicing with a softball team could be charged with a season of participation in baseball. If a male practice player practices with a women's team in a sport (e.g., bowling, squash, team handball) that has no equivalent men's-sponsored sport, the male student is charged with a season of participation in the women's sport.
Question: May male student-athletes
participating in a sport that is also sponsored for women participate in the
women's team's practice if it occurs outside the men's team's declared playing
season?
Answer: No. For example, a men's volleyball student-athlete could not participate as a male practice player for the women's volleyball team if the women's team's practices occur outside the men's volleyball team's declared playing season per Division III Bylaw 17.1.3.
Question: Will male practice players need to satisfy transfer regulations in order to be eligible to practice with a female team?
Answer: No. Since transfer regulations impact a student-athlete's eligibility to compete, male practice players are not required to be certified for transfer eligibility as male practice players may not permissibly compete for an all female team. However, a male practice player is still required to meet all other general eligibility requirements and could still use a season of participation by practicing with a female team regardless of their transfer eligibility status coming from another institution.
Question: May an institution conduct a "dual practice" in which its men's and women's teams in the same sport practice together without triggering the use of male practice players?
Answer: An institution may conduct a "dual practice" on a very limited basis as permitted by the proposal recognizing that, based on the spirit and intent of this proposal, at no time during any practice in any sport should a female student-athlete be sitting out of practice due to a male student-athlete's participation in her place.
Question: Is there a distinction between male students who serve as coaches or managers and male students who participate as male practice players?
Answer: Yes. If your institution uses current male students as coaches or managers of any team including a female team, the male student coach or manager would not be considered a male practice player (and avoid using a season of participation) provided the male student coach or manager is exclusively performing coaching or managerial duties and not serving as a practice player under the guise of being a coach or manager. For example, a male student serving as a coach should exclusively perform coaching duties such as running practice drills, demonstrating a drill or technique, explaining game strategy or other distinctive coaching duties. A male student coach or manager who fills out a short-handed female squad for purposes of scrimmaging in practice or otherwise is used to practice or train with a female team is in fact a male practice player regardless of their title as "coach" or "manager" and would be subject to the current seasons-of-participation and eligibility-certification rules applicable to all Division III student-athletes as well as the parameters outlined in this proposal.