2. Division I Student-Athlete Reinstatement Stephanie Grace | Matt Maher | Brad Rochman

3. Overview Legislative updates. Committee updates.
Student-athlete reinstatement guidelines.
Case study.

4. Participation Prior to Final Certification
Violations occurring after October 29, 2015, are now de minimis provided the student-athlete is subsequently certified without conditions (Bylaw ) or as a final academic qualifier (Bylaws and ).
What does this mean?
SA’s eligibility is not affected.
Reinstatement through RSRO is not necessary.
Report institutional violation to enforcement staff through RSRO.
Violations that occur prior to October 29, 2015 still need to be submitted to reinstatement staff through RSRO. Staff has been using TRP to provide relief from withholding (practice and competition) when the student-athlete is subsequently certified without conditions or as a final academic qualifier.

5. Legislative Changes Impacting SAR
Proposal No : In men’s basketball, amends IAWP legislation (Bylaws and ) to make it less restrictive with respect to reassigning a coach from a countable coaching position to a noncoaching position.
Proposal No : Eliminates administrative burdens with respect to institutional, charitable, education or nonprofit promotions under Bylaw
Proposal : In men’s basketball, an institution may now reassign an individual associated with a PSA from a countable coaching position to a noncoaching position or strength and conditioning position, provided the individual has been a countable coach at the institution for at least the previous two academic years.
DI session – IAWP; immediately after this session (1-2 p.m.)
Proposal : An SA is no longer required to receive written approval from the institution’s athletic director and the SA and a representative of the charitable organization are no longer required to sign a release statement prior to participation in a noninstitutional charitable, education or nonprofit promotion. However, the SA’s participation is subject to the limitations on participants in such activities as set forth in Bylaw 17 and the SA and an authorized representative of the charitable organization must affirm the SA’s name, image or appearance is used in a manner consistent to support the organization’s charitable or educational activities or to support activities considered incidental to the SA’s participation in intercollegiate athletics.
Example: SA may attend a promotional event at a local hospital without receiving written permission from the athletic director or signing a release with a representative of the charitable organization provided the limitation on participants is consistent with those set forth in Bylaw 17 and the SA and an authorized representative of the charitable organization affirm the SA’s name, image or appearance is used in a manner consistent with to support the organization’s charitable or educational activities or to support activities considered incidental to the SA’s participation in intercollegiate athletics. Further, the requirements of in sections (b) – (h) must still be met (i.e., no co-sponsorship with commercial entity, SA may not miss class, SA’s name, picture or appearance is not used to promote a commercial entity, etc.)

6. Legislative Changes Impacting SAR
Proposal No : All academic misconduct legislation has been moved to Bylaw 14. Additionally, the application of academic misconduct has been expanded to include any situation in which an institutional staff member is involved and the academic extra benefit analysis has been replaced with a limited definition of impermissible academic assistance.
Proposal : All academic misconduct legislation (pre- and post-enrollment) has been moved to Bylaw 14. Additionally, the proposal expanded the application of academic misconduct legislation to any situation in which an institutional staff member is involved and replaced the academic extra benefit analysis as it relates to academic assistance issues with a specific and limited definition of impermissible academic assistance.
Academic misconduct session Wed 3:30-4:30.

7. SAR Committee Updates
Potential items:
Academic misconduct guideline.

8. Case Study: Hillary Trump
Hillary Trump is a fifth-year softball SA at White House University.
Year
Institution
Competed?
Oval Office College
Yes
Yes; medical hardship waiver
White House University

9. Facts
On WHU’s transfer questionnaire, OOC indicated Hillary received a medical hardship waiver for the softball season.
After Hillary competed in nine contests during the season, WHU discovered OOC never filed a hardship waiver for Hillary.
Hillary has competed in five seasons.
Violation: Bylaw (Five-Year Rule).
Do we care whether OOC is an NCAA member institution?
-Yes, Bylaw (Two-Year College Hardship).

10. Facts
After the violation was discovered, WHU immediately filed a hardship waiver with its conference office for
The conference office denied the hardship waiver due to a lack of medical documentation.
Due to a misunderstanding, Hillary’s head coach allowed her to play in four more games while the waiver was pending.
Violation: Bylaw (Obligation of Member Institution to Withhold Student-Athlete from Competition).
Where should WHU file the hardship waiver? OOC’s conference, WHU’s conference or NCAA?

11. Facts
When Hillary came by the compliance office to sign her Buckley Statement, she mentioned she set up a GoFundMe page to help pay for graduate school.
Violation: Bylaw (Advertisements and Promotions After Becoming a Student-Athlete).

12. Hillary and SAR What should the reinstatement staff process first?
Hardship waiver appeal.
Reinstatement request (three violations).
The staff should process the hardship waiver first. If it is denied, Hillary has exhausted her four seasons of competition and has no eligibility left to reinstate.
Anticipated question: how many RSRO cases to file?

13. SAR Analysis
Division I Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement guidelines.
Case precedent.
Totality of the circumstances.
Temporary Review Process.
Where should WHU file the hardship waiver? OOC’s conference, WHU’s conference or NCAA?

14. Hardship Waiver Appeal
Hillary sustained a traumatic brain injury in a car accident August 2012.
WHU provided emergency room documentation and recommendation from treating physician not to enroll in college.
WHU was unable to provide medical documentation throughout the softball season.
After the year, Hillary was evaluated by a second physician, who stated she never should have enrolled or competed with her injury.
Hillary stated she did not understand the severity of the injury when she chose to return to school for her second year.
Case No – TRP
Additional facts – Hillary’s grades dropped during year and she could only participate in softball limitedly.

15. Violation: Bylaw
Hillary competed in nine contests in a fifth season.
Starting point: one-for-one withholding.
Mitigation?
Case No – Totality
Mitigation: WHU and SA believed a hardship waiver had been granted.
Bad information on transfer questionnaire
WHU allowed her to compete without confirming hardship waiver.
Hardship waiver was subsequently granted.

16. Violation: Bylaw
Hillary competed in four additional contests while her hardship waiver was pending.
Starting point: one-for-one withholding.
Mitigation?
Guidelines
Mitigation: Lack of SA culpability.
Institutional error.
No withholding condition imposed for the violation.

17. SAR Guidelines Guidelines Mitigation: Lack of SA culpability.
Institutional error.
No withholding condition imposed for the violation.
Dates show how often committee reviews guidelines.

18. Violation: Bylaw 12.5.2.1 Case precedent
Reminder to file Level 3 enforcement case in RSRO for all three violations.

19. Summary Legislative and committee updates. SAR guidelines.
Analyzing cases.
Questions?

20. Download the Event App
Visit the Regional Rules web page at or
Scan the QR code

21. We Want Your Feedback Your input is important.
Rate this session using the survey on the Regional Rules Seminar app.