In Acosta v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (1995) 31 Cal. App. 4th 471, a divided court held that section 831.7 did not immunize a school district where a high school gymnast was injured while practicing under the supervision of his coach in the school gymnasium after school. (31 Cal. App. 4th at p. 474.) The majority reasoned that, although gymnastics was a hazardous activity within the meaning of the statute (id. at p. 477, fn. 3), the training session in which the plaintiff participated was not "recreational," but rather part of a "school-sponsored extracurricular sports program" and essentially similar to training sessions the coach conducted for his team members at other times. (Id. at pp. 478-479.) In the majority's view, the Legislature did not intend by enacting section 831.7 to immunize school districts from liability for negligent supervision of students in extracurricular sports, a long-established basis for liability in tort law. (31 Cal. App. 4th at pp. 477-478.) In Acosta v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (1995) a member of a high school gymnastics team was injured during a practice supervised by his coach. He sued the school district, which asserted section 831.7 immunity. The Court began its analysis by citing the long-standing California law that a school district has a duty to exercise reasonable care in supervising students engaged in extracurricular activities and by observing that "If the term 'hazardous recreational activity' is interpreted to include school sponsored and supervised activities, schools would be immune from liability for the negligent supervision of students engaged in virtually every extracurricular sport (e.g., football, basketball, baseball, gymnastics, soccer, wrestling), as well as activities which are often part of a school's physical education program such as archery and trampolining. ... This would constitute a major revision of California law with respect to school district tort liability." ( Id. at p. 477.) The Court chose not to make that major revision of law, and its reasoning is well worth quoting at length: "A court will not conclude the Legislature 'intends to overthrow long-established principles of law unless such intention is made clearly to appear either by express declaration or by necessary implication.' Nowhere in section 831.7 or its legislative history is there an express declaration the Legislature intended to immunize school districts from liability resulting from negligent supervision of extracurricular activities in general or athletics in particular. Nor is such immunity conferred by necessary implication. Under section 831.7 a school district would not be liable for purely 'recreational' activities which happen to be conducted on school property. ( Yarber v. Oakland Unified School Dist. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1516 at p. 1519 6 Cal. Rptr. 2d 437 school district immune from liability under 831.7 for injury to player in adult community basketball league using gym after school hours.) However, we believe a clear distinction exists between allowing the public to use school facilities after hours, on weekends or during vacations and school-sponsored athletic practices under the supervision of school personnel after school or during the off-season." ( Id. at p. 473.) Acosta held that as a matter of law, school sponsored and supervised extracurricular athletic activities are not hazardous recreational activities under the statute. ( Id. at p. 476.)