Here is an article about Ms. Noffke’s injuries.

http://www.courierlifenews.com/articles/2009/01/29/thisjustin/09acheerleader.txt

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/01/27/no-no-says-wisc-high-court-cheerleading-is-a-contact-sport/

1 – I’m so surprised this is the first case encountering this controversy. It has been 15 to 20 years since the “cheerleading” role has evolved to represent the sport-within-a-sport activity. This is made clear as no longer do words of the cheers directly correlate with the direct need on the field or court (i.e., “push’em back, push’em back, way back”[fb] or “take-it away”[bb]), nor are the vocal cheers responded to by a “pep club” as in earlier years. Instead, we see short acrobatic stunts, choreographed dance routines which implement some of the old NCA (National Cheerleading Assn.) concepts, but with much more in the way of jazz, modern dance steps (some frankly with more sexually suggestive motion than belong in any school district), and not to leave out much emphasis in gymnastic floor and climbing acts. These characteristics are what give them a sense of clout and respect, in a way, today, as many are very, very good at what they do.

2 – If cheerleading is not a sport today, then I am shocked school districts have not been forced to eliminate either the title/name of “cheerleader” (because that title is really no longer appropriate), or the venue in which they perform.

3 – I suggest you contact school district after school district, and find out what kind of rules and regulations they have been utilizing. The liability factor is huge today, and it is absurd to imagine that the education system lacks clarification on this topic.

4 – Last comment: Even though I may sound negative on the cheerleader, I must give credit to local supporters and parents of cheerleaders. Some school districts have several squads that rotate among the traditional sports, making a connection with all teams from 9th to 12th grades. I have witnessed an acceptance of sizes and varying capabilities academically and physically that represent a non-discriminating stance toward the sport. I have to recognize that many students that would not otherwise be involved in anything are encouraged to belong and become a part of this “movement”.

I tried to look up any articles on the injured girl to see what the extent of her injury was, and the nearest explanation was a cliche phrase to be found at the tail end of any physician’s bio . . . (roughly) that “her quality of life is not what it should be”. Also, it was not mentioned whether the boy was being intentionally careless or vicious in the action, or non-action as the case may be.
Even without those two features explained, it is shocking to me that a Supreme Court case has fallen short of clarity due to the lack of an appropriate definition for cheerleading within our public schools. Ultimately, rather than stew over inappropriate or inept regulations, we must be able to see our present failure and get our books in order. IF LAWS DO NOT SERVE PURPOSES WITH TRUE INTENT AND INTEGRITY, THEN CHANGE THEM.

There was a case a few years ago where a male wanted to be with the gymnastics team, and his school said okay, but the State Association said that equal rights under Title IX didn’t apply to them, and it was upheld by the courts.

http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2008/12/the-significance-of-defining-sport.html

Without reading the opinion, I’m intrigued by the decision that “physical contact” is ambiguous. I suspect the intent of the legislature was centered on physical contact between opponents, but “physical contact” does not by itself strike me as ambiguous. This seems like a “no vehicles in the park” type of case.