All right, I want to paddle in a different direction for a bit.
I don't think anyone is "against" protecting the youth playing on our teams from people who could (or have) acted inappropriately against them. Background checks are one way to do that. If ASA had required teams to "certify" that they had performed background checks on adults who were going to have contact with minors, without collecting money for it, would we be up in arms?
I am FOR protecting my daughter and her teammates from sexual predators and people who have convictions for violent crimes. They may be "reformed" and want to give back by working with America's youth, but frankly that is not my problem. Get lost.
I am dissatisfied with the ASA position on three fronts. First, they believe that the only satisfactory background check is one that they administer (and that they are probably going to profit from, even if it is only a dollar or two). Most school coaches have to pass a background check - that is good enough for me. My daughter is playing school ball - enough said.
Second, they are only requiring ONE coach from each team to have this check. The argument that they are protecting my daughter is not BS. If the head coach is the freak, he or she will certainly direct one of the assistant coaches to take the test. Requiring only one coach - without requiring ALL coaches, ALL umpires, and ALL tournament directors - and ALL ASA paid staff members - to submit to the same background check is bogus. It is a classic case of smoke and mirrors. (Supposedly California does this. I am not saying it is a good idea - but I do think that if you are going to do it, that is a better application of the policy.)
My third beef is that there are no written standards for what would result in the ASA rejecting a coach. (And frankly, I don't know what legal ground they have to do it.)
In terms of the certification - I am not so much against having standards that coaches need to meet, and I don't think the price is out of bounds. I haven't seen the materials so I don't know if it is worth it, but generally speaking, I am not against setting and measuring to standards.
So in a sense, I agree with JoeA in that this is a case of a regulatory body over-regulating. I don't think they start out with that goal, but each part of the body adds a regulation, and there is nobody at the top saying "This is stupid when you add this all up."