Wow, reading through most of this, many seem to think it's no big deal because it happens all the time. That may be true, but that doesn't mean it's not against the rules and maybe it is unfair for schools that actually do follow the rules. It may happen in the summer all the time, but once the season starts, you are only allowed to practice against others on your team. Period. That's why they give you two scrimmages and once the season starts, there are no more scrimmages allowed. Because you are ONLY allowed to practice against the players on your team.

 

Same with boys vs girl practices. It's all about liability. Not whether it's okay. I know for a fact that HHS got their hand slapped by the KHSAA for having their girls varsity practice against their freshman boys team last year. I also know for a fact that other teams do it, but I can tell you that HHS would never do it again. So others did it this year and HHS didn't...if that fair? Wouldn't having your girl's team competing against any boys 2-3 days a week create an advantage over a team that doesn't? Heck, that's why they do it! On the record, I have no problem with girls practicing against boys and making them better. I promote it actually, but it's illegal (whether you agree with it or not) to do it. Same with pulling in "volunteers" during the seaon, regardless if they are former college players or not.

 

Do I care that Cov Cath did it or that other girls teams have said they bring in people. Not really. I really could care less, other than an unfair advantage. But to say it's not a violation is not true. It's breaking the rules. Maybe they don't enforce the rules like they should, but when it's in B&W in front of thousands of people, I think they have to act in some way.

 

 

And for those that are caught up on "college players" or "students", did you catch this part of it. It says "persons" for a reason. In season, no one but your teammates are allowed to practice with you. Heck, I coach softball in HHS. I know plenty of ex-college pitchers. I would love to have them come in and pitch batting practice against my kids everyday. How good of hitters would we be. But you're not allowed!!! Anyone that practices with kids or instructs in anyway, must go through all of the KHSAA requirements. Bringing in anyone outside the program is highly illegal...college player, dad, whomever you want to say.

 

"Ineligible persons practicing with the team or participating in any

manner while representing the school potentially jeopardize

the insurance coverage, including catastrophic and liability

insurance, of all participants and the liability coverage of the

school and school system."

 

Bingo. Possible loss of catastrophic insurance coverage is a huge concern for the KHSAA. Best I recall is that the insurance only covers injuries incurred when eligible players are playing/practicing against other eligible players. I'd think, but do not know for certain, that if eligible CovCath players practiced during the season against any person that is not an eligible player it would be a violation of the KHSAA rules intended to ensure that the catastrophic coverage is not lost.

Bingo. Possible loss of catastrophic insurance coverage is a huge concern for the KHSAA. Best I recall is that the insurance only covers injuries incurred when eligible players are playing/practicing against other eligible players. I'd think, but do not know for certain, that if eligible CovCath players practiced during the season against any person that is not an eligible player it would be a violation of the KHSAA rules intended to ensure that the catastrophic coverage is not lost.

 

 

So basically if a CovCath kid would have gotten hurt during one of these practices the school could have refused to cover the medical costs that resulting from the injury?

 

 

If proven to be a violation what kind of penalty would CovCath face? I'm thinking that it would be a very minor penalty. Am I wrong?

I'm not a Cov Cath fan at all, but I've still yet to see anyone show me a rule that was violated. Show me where it makes mention of "former college athletes' or "alumni" in the rules. These rules apply to very specific incidents. The rules lend to a lot of gray area, because sports (at both the HS and college level) operate mainly in the gray. If it's not explicitly forbidden in the rules, it is allowable, or at the very least, unenforceable.

I'm not a Cov Cath fan at all, but I've still yet to see anyone show me a rule that was violated. Show me where it makes mention of "former college athletes' or "alumni" in the rules. These rules apply to very specific incidents. The rules lend to a lot of gray area, because sports (at both the HS and college level) operate mainly in the gray. If it's not explicitly forbidden in the rules, it is allowable, or at the very least, unenforceable.

 

It's a scrimmage and you get two. Two scrimmages prior to your first regular season game. If it's preseason, it counts as a scrimmage. If it's during the regular season, regardless of how many scrimmages you have already played, it's considered a scrimmage and is a violation.

 

It's the reason no one does "alumni" type games anymore where you play the current team.

 

The catastrophic injury angle is another reason it's not allowed. You are not permitted to play, scrimmage or otherwise, teams (or groups of people) that are not NFHS sanctioned schools. You can get special permission for games like those played against prep schools, like Oak Hill Academy.

I'm not a Cov Cath fan at all, but I've still yet to see anyone show me a rule that was violated. Show me where it makes mention of "former college athletes' or "alumni" in the rules. These rules apply to very specific incidents. The rules lend to a lot of gray area, because sports (at both the HS and college level) operate mainly in the gray. If it's not explicitly forbidden in the rules, it is allowable, or at the very least, unenforceable.

Look up this part of the bylaws 23-9(11). Tell me if you think everything was above board if kids outside the program were allowed to practice.

I initially didn't see the problem. I'm totally turned around at this point. The rules are clearly designed to protect insurance coverage and that's a darn good reason. I'm not crazy about the wording of the bylaw, but that's a different problem.

I still don't get what the big deal is...

 

The only "college" players CCH could have practiced against are the coaches, since their practices are closed. And what does "played against " mean? B

 

Was it 5 on 5? Were the coaches demonstrating drills? Were the coaches using a pad to simulate contact during the game?

 

No matter what the case I think as long as no one was there besides coaches then it doesnt look like anything is wrong.

I still don't get what the big deal is...

 

The only "college" players CCH could have practiced against are the coaches, since their practices are closed. And what does "played against " mean? B

 

Was it 5 on 5? Were the coaches demonstrating drills? Were the coaches using a pad to simulate contact during the game?

 

No matter what the case I think as long as no one was there besides coaches then it doesnt look like anything is wrong.

Article says Coaches and "Volunteers", that would seem to indicate more than just the coaches practiced against them.

I still don't get what the big deal is...

 

The only "college" players CCH could have practiced against are the coaches, since their practices are closed. And what does "played against " mean? B

 

Was it 5 on 5? Were the coaches demonstrating drills? Were the coaches using a pad to simulate contact during the game?

 

No matter what the case I think as long as no one was there besides coaches then it doesnt look like anything is wrong.

Well, that's the billion dollar question skippy, why would a kid feel the need to say what was said in the article if all that was in practice was the coaching staff? When you step in it, and it smells like it, is there really a need to check the bottom of your shoe?

Article says Coaches and "Volunteers", that would seem to indicate more than just the coaches practiced against them.

 

It has to be referencing the volunteer coaches (ones who don't get paid, Elliot and Fredrick.) No one else was even in CCH gym during their practices.

Well, that's the billion dollar question skippy, why would a kid feel the need to say what was said in the article if all that was in practice was the coaching staff? When you step in it, and it smells like it, is there really a need to check the bottom of your shoe?

 

Notice the kid never used the word volunteers. All he said was former college players, meaning his coaches who all played in college.

Article says Coaches and "Volunteers", that would seem to indicate more than just the coaches practiced against them.

 

It is my understanding that at least one or two of the varsity coaches are not paid, hence making them volunteers. For what it's worth, every coach is also a former college basketball player.

It is my understanding that at least one or two of the varsity coaches are not paid, hence making them volunteers. For what it's worth, every coach is also a former college basketball player.

 

But wouldn't you consider them Coaches and Not Volunteers when discussing them...it seems that they are talking about two completely different sets of people

But wouldn't you consider them Coaches and Not Volunteers when discussing them...it seems that they are talking about two completely different sets of people

 

I got that same impression.

“It helps,” Schult said. “Their goal is to make practice harder than the game. It will help you in the long run. Playing against all these former college players really does help.”

That's the only quote in the article from a player that mentions practicing against anyone not on the team.

 

The reference to "volunteers" was the journalist's words, not from a player.