I have to disagree. The court rules on the "Law" which it should. But, when a school joins the KHSAA, it agrees to live by the "bylaws" of the organization. In doing that, the school agrees to live by those rules, which may or may not be applicable by state or federal law. Now, if the KHSAA violates the law, then, of course, the law should be applied. But, when deciding if a player is eligible to play sports as it pertains to the KHSAA rules, that is up to the KHSAA.

 

Secondly, in this case, we have a judge who lives in Westwood (which is Fairview's district) and has strong ties to Fairview with his wife's family owning the only funeral home in Westwood and being a businessman in the school district ruling on a case that directly affects the judge's re-election potential and the judge's family business. Come on.

 

That's fine to disagree. However, I will still say that KHSAA cannot and should not trump a court of law. You are speculating on why a judge made a decision. This does not mean that is why it was made.

 

The by-laws should not penalize anyone (individual or school) for abiding my a court order.

That's fine to disagree. However, I will still say that KHSAA cannot and should not trump a court of law. You are speculating on why a judge made a decision. This does not mean that is why it was made.

 

The by-laws should not penalize anyone (individual or school) for abiding my a court order.

I can see both side of the KHSAA rule versus the Court order argument. But, I do know the particulars of the judge, where he lives and who he counts on to be re-elected. And, this is something that is true for all these injunctions. The thing is, for judges making rulings on these KHSAA injections they are in a win win situation, they get to look good making the popular decision for their constituants and no one gets hurt from their decision.

Thanks!

I can see both side of the KHSAA rule versus the Court order argument. But, I do know the particulars of the judge, where he lives and who he counts on to be re-elected. And, this is something that is true for all these injunctions. The thing is, for judges making rulings on these KHSAA injections they are in a win win situation, they get to look good making the popular decision for their constituants and no one gets hurt from their decision.

 

It is still speculation as to why the ruling was made. You may be right. But if the case has merit and the judge ruled as he/she should according to the law, it will look like a political/business decision regardless. Still, the KHSAA cannot think themselves above the law.

Are these kids playing for Fairview still living in W. VA?

Are these kids playing for Fairview still living in W. VA?

One person in West Virginia reported they were. But, the Fairview Superintendent does have some rental property that other players have used before, so who knows.

Ram I am a little shocked at how strong you have come off on this one. You have essentially accused a judge of abuse of his authority at the least, and possibly criminal wrongdoing. Then painted all judges w/ the same brush saying all like cases are and have been decided by judges who are biased in the same way. In the most famous of these cases, Mike Mitchell was ruled eligible by a judge who is a Campbell County grad and who's family has ties to that school and community. She, yes I said she, had no affiliation with either school involved.

You imply that a superintendent is housing students to avert the rules but offer no proof. In fact you confirm that you do not know where they live in citing what someone else said about where they live.

You wrongly state that the court should have no jurisdiction over the ruling of the KHSAA bylaw when that bylaw clearly states within that matters unresolved are to be heard in the court in that school's jurisdiction.

 

A little over the top!

Ram I am a little shocked at how strong you have come off on this one. You have essentially accused a judge of abuse of his authority at the least, and possibly criminal wrongdoing. Then painted all judges w/ the same brush saying all like cases are and have been decided by judges who are biased in the same way. In the most famous of these cases, Mike Mitchell was ruled eligible by a judge who is a Campbell County grad and who's family has ties to that school and community. She, yes I said she, had no affiliation with either school involved.

You imply that a superintendent is housing students to avert the rules but offer no proof. In fact you confirm that you do not know where they live in citing what someone else said about where they live.

You wrongly state that the court should have no jurisdiction over the ruling of the KHSAA bylaw when that bylaw clearly states within that matters unresolved are to be heard in the court in that school's jurisdiction.

 

A little over the top!

I stated my opinion on the court and the KHSAA. I didn't say that the rule said that.

 

Now, some of the transfer players did give the superintendent's rental property as an address, that is the past and is accurate.

 

It was not my intention to paint judges with one brush as you stated, I said it was a win win situation for the judge, there is no one's freedom or loss of property at stake. I would say a desicion about a high school athlete's eligibility would be the easiest decision a judge makes all week. Maybe not.

 

As for the rule, I clearly stated in the thread linked above that I would prefer the KHSAA either fix it, or do away with it. It really doesn't matter to me which they choose, but choose one and let it be done.

Ram I am a little shocked at how strong you have come off on this one. You have essentially accused a judge of abuse of his authority at the least, and possibly criminal wrongdoing. Then painted all judges w/ the same brush saying all like cases are and have been decided by judges who are biased in the same way. In the most famous of these cases, Mike Mitchell was ruled eligible by a judge who is a Campbell County grad and who's family has ties to that school and community. She, yes I said she, had no affiliation with either school involved.

You imply that a superintendent is housing students to avert the rules but offer no proof. In fact you confirm that you do not know where they live in citing what someone else said about where they live.

You wrongly state that the court should have no jurisdiction over the ruling of the KHSAA bylaw when that bylaw clearly states within that matters unresolved are to be heard in the court in that school's jurisdiction.

 

A little over the top!

 

What was the name of that judge BTW?

 

I thought it was Judge Bill Wehr

Ram it was just fixed last year. The legislature stepped hard on the KHSAA and Brigid DeVries was shown the door. Past wrongs were righted (Highlands restored wins) and the rule now clearly states that the courts are available to remedy these situations and further states that all parties, the KHSAA included, will abide by the courts ruling and that the association cannot punish players or schools if said ruling is later overturned.

 

If one of my children were in a transfer situation I would not even appeal to the KHSAA. I would simply go directly to the court with my case and state that the KHSAA and it's members have conspired to deprive my child of benefits that are available to every other student within the district. That they have done so in an arbitrary manner, and have in doing so discriminated against my child simply based on the fact that his/her parents chose to transfer schools and without consideration of the many reasons that thousands of kids do transfer within the Commonwealth and millions in other states each year. I might also point out that those in lower socioeconomic demographics and minorities are more likely, both inside and outside the Commonwealth, to transfer schools during their high school years and such arbitrary rules therefore unfairly discriminate against those persons.

 

I know some will quickly state that sports are not a right, that they are a privlage. If sports, the band, the school play, a club, or any other extra curricular is available to all other students, then to deny the right to another child because he just transferred is justification for my argument.

 

Ram I don't have a beef with your opinion. I do have a beef with transfer rules that automatically disqualify in the case of a transfer.

What was the name of that judge BTW?

 

I thought it was Judge Bill Wehr

 

Hon. Julie Rienhart

Hon. Julie Rienhart

Thanks for the info!

What was the name of that judge BTW?

 

I thought it was Judge Bill Wehr

 

Judge Wehr made the initial ruling for an injunction. Hon. Julie Rienhart heard the case and made subsequent rulings.

Ram I don't have a beef with your opinion. I do have a beef with transfer rules that automatically disqualify in the case of a transfer.

Nor do I have a beef with your opinion. I just want a clear rule, or no rule. It seems that there is no way to clearly predict how a student/athlete will be judged, (pun intended).

 

I have seen some that have a clear and rule abiding reason for transferring rule ineligible, and I have seen some that obviously circumvented the rule and was ruled eligible. Just a clear rule, or no rule, would be great.

And Bill Wehr is a CovCath graduate.