Court Injunction Filed by Fairview

[Theoldguy]

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

 

 

Thought he had something to do with it. BTW Bill sat behind me for four years of HS at.........CovCath and was a member of the very first football team in the history of CovCath.

[GC_Football_Coach]

The KHSAA did their investigation and found no wrong doing. Case closed. Why should there be any other questions asked???? Two schools cried saying fairview was recruiting over and over and over again. Did investigation no charges.

[Ram]

The KHSAA did their investigation and found no wrong doing. Case closed. Why should there be any other questions asked???? Two schools cried saying fairview was recruiting over and over and over again. Did investigation no charges.

Actually, the KHSAA did their investigation and found the two players ineligible, then Fairview got the injunction.

 

And, only one school complained, not two.

 

Care for strike three?

[GC_Football_Coach]

I believe the mighty rams and Ashland were the culprits. Here's my problem with all of this, If Fairview was losing nobody would care one bit, but they're winning and beating a certain team down the road, now it's a problem???? Get real.

[Ram]

I believe the mighty rams and Ashland were the culprits. Here's my problem with all of this, If Fairview was losing nobody would care one bit, but they're winning and beating a certain team down the road, now it's a problem???? Get real.

Again, only one school complained, and it wasn't Raceland. You should know as much as anyone Raceland has never challenged eligibility on any player, not one.

 

Again, I'm fine with doing away with the rule, just make it public and everyone can go on their merry way, as it would be.

[GC_Football_Coach]

We will agree to disagree. But Raceland did report them. I know this for a fact. You are entitled to your opinion as I am. I respect your opinion.

[Ram]

We will agree to disagree. But Raceland did report them. I know this for a fact. You are entitled to your opinion as I am. I respect your opinion.

I respect your as well, and what we think really doesn't matter in the end. But, I promise Raceland did not file a complaint.

 

I just wish there was a clear way to handle transfers, then we wouldn't have such debates.

[GC_Football_Coach]

I agree 100%.

[leatherneck]

I respect your as well, and what we think really doesn't matter in the end. But, I promise Raceland did not file a complaint.

 

I just wish there was a clear way to handle transfers, then we wouldn't have such debates.

 

Cold Hard has correctly responded to many points raised so I won't bother addressing those, other to say that as a state administrative agency, the KHSAA's final decisions are subject to court intervention.

 

As to a clear way, or a hard and fast rule if I may, I don't think that is very feasible or fair. Each transfer is pretty much unique, which each one have it's own set of facts and circumstances. A hard and fast rule allowing everyone to transfer with no repercussions would create it's own problems (although I admit, I'm in favor of allowing every kid one transfer with no questions asked unless illegal recruiting by a coach or school is proven). Allowing no players that transfer to have eligibility with no exceptions would likewise create problems. The current rule is a middle of the road compromise that generally works. Is it perfect? No it is not. No rule will ever be perfect for all circumstances.

 

Cold Hard, before a person can ask the courts to intervene, he/she must first exhaust his/her administrative remedies. In other words, before a court can intervene in an eligibility case, the KHSAA eligibility process must be finally completed. So I believe that if you did not appeal to the KHSAA, you would have waived your right to appeal the KHSAA's final decision to the courts. Not giving legal advise; just my understanding of the way things work.

[sidelinedoc]

We will agree to disagree. But Raceland did report them. I know this for a fact. You are entitled to your opinion as I am. I respect your opinion.

 

Not trying to beat a dead horse but I am in the know and can tell you factually 100% that Raceland did not report Fairview. Ashland called, mailed info and faxed info to the KHSAA. The KHSAA came to the area and spoke to people, including the Huntington High AD et al. End of story. This thread is regarding the "new" eligibilty issues at Fairview.

[Backspin]

How much does it cost the school to obtain the court injunction?

[spindoc]

How much does it cost the school to obtain the court injunction?

The school doesn't file it. The student/parents do.

[spindoc]

Once a child has exhausted his/her avenue with the KHSAA, they receive a letter notifying them of the option of seeking a court injunction. I have one in my desk as a matter of fact. I'd be glad to share what happens at that point if anyone is interested.

[Michael Corleone]

So the KHSAA investigates and finds that the transfers were not within their rules and the court awards the parents/kids an injuction. How in the world can anyone be mad at an opposing school or schools if they report something illegal that is proven to be illegal? So, in this case, Ashland is the vilian because Fairview violated the rules? I'm confused where some of you are coming from.

[Watusi]

I am glad we have the option to take a case to court when you feel like the KHSAA has made a poor ruling in an eligibility issue. It is a natural progression to seek a higher opinion in court to settle a case like that. The KHSAA is not perfect and sometimes they do not apply their own rules equitably in every case and we need to be able to challenge their decisions or they have an unfair control over everyone involved.

 

The problem I see that sometimes arises is that some folks know they can play the system a bit to buy some more playing time, regarless of whether they think the KHSAA ruled properly or not. For example, let's assume a player transfers from one school to another and the parents know that they didn't have a bonafide change of residence as is required by the KHSAA bylaw. Further assume the KHSAA rules the player does not qualify for a waiver to the transfer rule and thus has to sit out a year in that sport. The parents can take that issue to court for a ruling, and in the meantime, while they wait for the case to come up on the docket, they ask for an injuction by the court to allow the player to continue to play while the case plays itself out. The school can then play that player in good conscience with no penalty. If the court case drags out beyond the season, then the outcome is really irrelevant and the parents have successfully beat the system, legally.

 

After years of watching these cases play out, and having some change of heart about the matter, I now agree with leatherneck that kids and parents should be allowed to choose to transfer their kids to whatever school they want with no penalty. The whole point of these rules are to discourage illegal recruiting by coaches/programs, but our focus on enforcement is to punish the player. So shift that focus to the coaches and schools. If we allow kids to transfer (at least once) with no loss of playing time, and in conjunction with that we increase the penalty for illegal recruiting and punish the coaches and schools when it is proven, I think it would be a better system. The severity of the punishment would be a good debate, but IMO any coach found guilty of recruiting would face unpaid suspension and/or banishment on a sliding scale and the offending school would face monetary punishment on a sliding scale (increasing with each offense). Then we would be punishing the guilty instead of punishing the teenage players.