I guess my question is if a player gets an injuction that is eventually overturned the KHSAA says this is a violation by the coach and school. I just wonder do you think the coach should be punished?

 

I used the Mitchell case because it is one that I know this happened in.

 

No way do I think the coach or the school should be punished. As an attorney, I find this whole concept of being able to punish a coach or school that played a kid that was eligible at the time to be punished if the injunction was subsequently over turned to be totally ridiculous (and for that matter every attorney that I've ever spoken to about this issue agrees with me except for the attorneys at one law firm which just happens to represent the KHSAA:D). Furthermore, the KHSAA's position totally and I mean totally guts a player's right to get an injunction (which the KHSAA's own rules and the Ky Constitution guarantees). Simple logic for you: what good is that right to get an injunction if the KHSAA can simply negate it by threatening the schools with punishments if it plays the kid and the injunction is subsequently overturned? Very, very few schools are going to gamble that they might be sanctioned by the KHSAA. So they are not going to play the kid. Thus getting an injunction is a pyrrhic victory and the right to an injunction becomes meaningless. Why is that so hard for some people (not necessarily you) to understand?

What is even worse in the "Mitchell case" is Mitchell/Highlands "won" in the end so the case wasn't over turned yet Mitchell/Highlands/Coach Mueller had already been punished.

What is even worse in the "Mitchell case" is Mitchell/Highlands "won" in the end so the case wasn't over turned yet Mitchell/Highlands/Coach Mueller had already been punished.

 

I agree with you but I'd like to make a technical correction if I may to your post so there is no confustion. Highlands did not initiate the lawsuit against the KHSAA; in fact the school was named as a defendent along with the KHSAA in the lawsuit. Highlands took no action opposed to the KHSAA decision. Unless and until the court ordered Mitchell eligible after Mitchell filed suit, Highlands was not going to play Mitchell, was going to comply with the decision of the KHSAA and was not itself going to take the issue to court.

 

So since Highlands didn't file the suit, Highlands didn't win. Mitchell won and the final action of the courts held him eligible. The KHSAA hasn't returned the fine and restored the victories is, I guess, because Highlands time to appeal the sanctions has elapsed. Well, duh, I think they only have 30 days from the date of the sanctions to appeal and the court action wasn't final for approximately 6 months after the sanctions were imposed. Talk about a trap.

^Lawyers.

I agree with you but I'd like to make a technical correction if I may to your post so there is no confustion. Highlands did not initiate the lawsuit against the KHSAA; in fact the school was named as a defendent along with the KHSAA in the lawsuit. Highlands took no action opposed to the KHSAA decision. Unless and until the court ordered Mitchell eligible after Mitchell filed suit, Highlands was not going to play Mitchell, was going to comply with the decision of the KHSAA and was not itself going to take the issue to court.

 

So since Highlands didn't file the suit, Highlands didn't win. Mitchell won and the final action of the courts held him eligible. The KHSAA hasn't returned the fine and restored the victories is, I guess, because Highlands time to appeal the sanctions has elapsed. Well, duh, I think they only have 30 days from the date of the sanctions to appeal and the court action wasn't final for approximately 6 months after the sanctions were imposed. Talk about a trap.

 

In all of this the Bell County Bobcats were the big loser! If Mitchell, the illegal player doesn't score 2 TDs Highlands then Highlands loses and Bell County goes on to the state title.

In all of this the Bell County Bobcats were the big loser! If Mitchell, the illegal player doesn't score 2 TDs Highlands then Highlands loses and Bell County goes on to the state title.

 

I understand why you feel that way (its wrong, but I understand:D:D). And as to the "if" part, you know that old saying about Aunt Edna and if, don't you?

In all of this the Bell County Bobcats were the big loser! If Mitchell, the illegal player doesn't score 2 TDs Highlands then Highlands loses and Bell County goes on to the state title.

If it wasn't Mitchell scoring those touchdowns it would have been someone else . Face it Highlands was the best 3A team that year.:fire:

If it wasn't Mitchell scoring those touchdowns it would have been someone else . Face it Highlands was the best 3A team that year.:fire:

 

Someone else would have picked up the fumble and hurdled over top the QB trying to make a tackle and ran it in for the TD? Someone else would have broken all those tackles he did on the winning TD drive? Not saying it definitly would not have happened, but no one else (skill position wise) did anything offensively for Highlands that night, except for him. You can't deny that.

If it wasn't Mitchell scoring those touchdowns it would have been someone else . Face it Highlands was the best 3A team that year.:fire:

 

Exactly.:thumb:

 

Someone else would have picked up the fumble and hurdled over top the QB trying to make a tackle and ran it in for the TD? Someone else would have broken all those tackles he did on the winning TD drive? Not saying it definitly would not have happened, but no one else (skill position wise) did anything offensively for Highlands that night, except for him. You can't deny that.

 

 

Note: The State Championship game.

Exactly.:thumb:

 

 

 

 

Note: The State Championship game.

 

Against a different team, and probably a weaker team. Its not like Highlands only let Mitchell carry the ball, he was just the only one successful at it. If I'm not mistaken Highlands had 70 something yards of total offense and Mitchell had over 2/3 of that.

Against a different team, and probably a weaker team. Its not like Highlands only let Mitchell carry the ball, he was just the only one successful at it. If I'm not mistaken Highlands had 70 something yards of total offense and Mitchell had over 2/3 of that.

 

Believe what you want, but if Highlands had to play Bell Co. without Mitchell, Highlands would have used a different game plan just as they did in the State game and Highlands still would have won.

Against a different team, and probably a weaker team. Its not like Highlands only let Mitchell carry the ball, he was just the only one successful at it. If I'm not mistaken Highlands had 70 something yards of total offense and Mitchell had over 2/3 of that.

 

Total offense is not the telling stat of the game...

 

Turnovers is... Bell County 3 Highlands 0

The injustice isn't that Mitchell played against Bell. It is that he didn't get to play against Boyle.

The injustice isn't that Mitchell played against Bell. It is that he didn't get to play against Boyle.

 

 

Right on Brother!:thumb:

Believe what you want, but if Highlands had to play Bell Co. without Mitchell, Highlands would have used a different game plan just as they did in the State game and Highlands still would have won.

 

I can't say for sure that Bell would have won that game if Mitchell didn't play. There is no way of knowig. But what bothers me is you guys think that you would have definitly won the game without Mitchell. If Bell holds onto the football they win easily. Obviously Highlands deserves credit for stripping the ball, but its beyond me how no one gives Bell credit for at the very least being on a level playing field with Highlands that year. This is after a week before the game where some Highlands fans were saying Bell would not cross the 50 against them and gave Bell no chance of competing with the mighty Highlands team.