Or looked for a job in Ashland.

 

Parents now don't have the right to look for jobs in other town? Come on.

Or looked for a job in Ashland.

Really, I don't blame the Eutons for looking to relocate to the Lexington area, given their son's commitment to UK. But there are a lot of other quality programs in the area.

Really, I don't blame the Eutons for looking to relocate to the Lexington area, given their son's commitment to UK. But there are a lot of other quality programs in the area.

 

And the chose Scott County!

And the chose Scott County!

Which has won two regional titles in the last eight years ... must have been for the travel.

Reading that article, makes me think the ruling will not be overturned.

 

Maybe sometimes it's just best to keep your mouth shut.

 

SC will still be a top 5-10 team in the state but I don't see them winning the title with just Phares and Guyn.

 

Go Holmes!!!

For the record, I have no dog in this fight. The whole situation sickens me.

 

It is a ridiculous surrender of personal liberty for the KHSAA to have the authority to restrict parents (by way of withholding athletic eligibility) from enrolling their children in any school they should choose, for any reason the parents deem appropriate.

 

I understand there have been horrible abuses in the past, by both conniving and clueless parents out there, that have necessitated a steady tightening of the rules, but we have reached a point of absurdity.

 

In reading all six pages of “KHSAA Bylaw 6 - Transfer Rule”, several notable highlights emerge.

 

The backbone of the bylaw is the assertion that any student in grades nine through twelve that has already participated in any varsity game in any sport at any school who then transfers schools shall be ineligible to participate in interscholastic athletics at any level in any sport for one year from the date of enrollment in the new school.

 

Pretty clear cut, but on its own would result in some very unfair treatment of kids whose circumstances required them to change schools during their four years of high school.

 

For this reason, there are currently eight exceptions that could justify a waiver of ineligibility. First on the list is “a bona fide change in residence by the parents and student that precedes a student’s change of schools.”

 

No problem here for Euton, Jackson or others who have moved their entire households into a new school district.

 

The hook is there are five “exceptions to the exceptions”, that can nullify one of the eight original exceptions, thereby allowing the Commissioner in his/her full discretion to refuse to grant a waiver. Number three reads:

 

“3) If the change in schools is motivated in whole or part by a desire to participate in athletics at the new school;”

 

This is what is being used to hang Euton and Jackson, and is a “NO WIN” situation for honest/intelligent parents.

 

This is one of the most feebly constructed “Catch 22” rules on the books. IMO it should be referred to as the “Liar or Moron” clause. In cases with clearly talented student athletes whose families need to relocate for a completely legitimate reason, only a liar would deny that athletics are a part of their evaluation process for which neighborhood and school district they ultimately move. Only a complete idiot would neglect to consider how athletics might better equip their child for the opportunity to continue their education in college. For less talented kids… who cares? I mean really, if they can make the team, let ‘em play. This is absolutely absurd as it is written.

 

The saddest part of all is that only a completely honest and thoughtful parent can be nailed down by this rule. (Liars, cheaters and complete idiots have the best chance to sneak past it.) For those of you who want to slam dad Euton, or a 16 year-old kid (Jackson) for stating (what any sensible person already should know is) the truth publicly, (and would at least have thought yourselves—if not actually said out loud—if you were in their shoes) as if by keeping their mouths shut they could have “sneaked a couple past” the KHSAA shame on you. Why have a rule so poorly written that it encourages (and by ineffective application rewards) dishonesty.

 

Is that the kind of integrity we should be teaching our kids? Not in my house, not in my state, not in my country.

 

Stomp out recruiting. Punish the offenders. But where no recruiting has taken place, don’t take away the freedom of parents to choose and do what they feel is absolutely the best for their children.

 

It’s time to rewrite a truly horribly constructed rule.

 

This rule is a blatant assault on our liberties. Our children are not the property of our state, the KHSAA or our school systems. I can’t believe anyone in the United States of America could calmly stand by and watch this freedom be stolen so boldly. It’s time to wake up.

For the record, I have no dog in this fight. The whole situation sickens me.

 

It is a ridiculous surrender of personal liberty for the KHSAA to have the authority to restrict parents (by way of withholding athletic eligibility) from enrolling their children in any school they should choose, for any reason the parents deem appropriate.

 

I understand there have been horrible abuses in the past, by both conniving and clueless parents out there, that have necessitated a steady tightening of the rules, but we have reached a point of absurdity.

 

In reading all six pages of “KHSAA Bylaw 6 - Transfer Rule”, several notable highlights emerge.

 

The backbone of the bylaw is the assertion that any student in grades nine through twelve that has already participated in any varsity game in any sport at any school who then transfers schools shall be ineligible to participate in interscholastic athletics at any level in any sport for one year from the date of enrollment in the new school.

 

Pretty clear cut, but on its own would result in some very unfair treatment of kids whose circumstances required them to change schools during their four years of high school.

 

For this reason, there are currently eight exceptions that could justify a waiver of ineligibility. First on the list is “a bona fide change in residence by the parents and student that precedes a student’s change of schools.”

 

No problem here for Euton, Jackson or others who have moved their entire households into a new school district.

 

The hook is there are five “exceptions to the exceptions”, that can nullify one of the eight original exceptions, thereby allowing the Commissioner in his/her full discretion to refuse to grant a waiver. Number three reads:

 

“3) If the change in schools is motivated in whole or part by a desire to participate in athletics at the new school;”

 

This is what is being used to hang Euton and Jackson, and is a “NO WIN” situation for honest/intelligent parents.

 

This is one of the most feebly constructed “Catch 22” rules on the books. IMO it should be referred to as the “Liar or Moron” clause. In cases with clearly talented student athletes whose families need to relocate for a completely legitimate reason, only a liar would deny that athletics are a part of their evaluation process for which neighborhood and school district they ultimately move. Only a complete idiot would neglect to consider how athletics might better equip their child for the opportunity to continue their education in college. For less talented kids… who cares? I mean really, if they can make the team, let ‘em play. This is absolutely absurd as it is written.

 

The saddest part of all is that only a completely honest and thoughtful parent can be nailed down by this rule. (Liars, cheaters and complete idiots have the best chance to sneak past it.) For those of you who want to slam dad Euton, or a 16 year-old kid (Jackson) for stating (what any sensible person already should know is) the truth publicly, (and would at least have thought yourselves—if not actually said out loud—if you were in their shoes) as if by keeping their mouths shut they could have “sneaked a couple past” the KHSAA shame on you. Why have a rule so poorly written that it encourages (and by ineffective application rewards) dishonesty.

 

Is that the kind of integrity we should be teaching our kids? Not in my house, not in my state, not in my country.

 

Stomp out recruiting. Punish the offenders. But where no recruiting has taken place, don’t take away the freedom of parents to choose and do what they feel is absolutely the best for their children.

 

It’s time to rewrite a truly horribly constructed rule.

 

This rule is a blatant assault on our liberties. Our children are not the property of our state, the KHSAA or our school systems. I can’t believe anyone in the United States of America could calmly stand by and watch this freedom be stolen so boldly. It’s time to wake up.

 

What a well thought out post! :thumb: I agree. Any parent that must move due to job relocation deserves the right to be able to consider what school will overall be best for their child and as a result, should not be penalized by the KHSAA for doing so.

 

Actually, I think that the KHSAA has missed a crucial point. With what Mr. Euton said, the change is schools was not motivated by an athletic desire - the change in schools was motivated by a job change. The choice of which school then to attend was then influenced by athletics. THAT is not a violation of any bylaw. This is essentially saying that no matter where the Euton's decide to send their son - out of the many posibilities that exist after the move - the ONE thing they can't use as a factor is athletics. If you HAVE to move due to job-based circumstances, you deserve the right to be able to consider all aspects of your school choices.

Euton will play this year for Scott Co. in my opinion. His case will be that he did not transfer for athletic reasons as they legitimately moved for job purposes. His statements(although maybe not the wisest thing to do) about picking the best scenario for his child(who among us would not do the same)had nothing to do with the actual reason for transferring............Jackson may not have as good a case though.

For the record, I have no dog in this fight. The whole situation sickens me.

Why have a rule so poorly written that it encourages (and by ineffective application rewards) dishonesty.

It’s time to rewrite a truly horribly constructed rule.

 

QUOTE]

Lobby the schools to change the rules...they are the ones that make them.

 

If the rules are so poorly written how come 75% of transfers are deemed eligible? Sounds like the majority of them got them right.

 

Why all of a sudden in certain publications has players words and such been deleted from articles...ie Jackson motivation to move was competition from internet article? If they are clean, why all of a sudden is revisionist history coming in to play?

This is all about the KHSAA showing everyone who the Sheriff is in Town.

They didn't like the newspaper article and their penalty is to put the parties involved through as much angst as possible. I see this dragging on until about December, and after extracting their pound of flesh, they will declare both Euton and Jackson eligible- if Euton and Jackson stay in the fire.

Just normal m/o for the KHSAA

This is a big story, how much bigger would it be if it was a private school involved?

As the world turns

For the record, I have no dog in this fight. The whole situation sickens me.

 

It is a ridiculous surrender of personal liberty for the KHSAA to have the authority to restrict parents (by way of withholding athletic eligibility) from enrolling their children in any school they should choose, for any reason the parents deem appropriate.

 

I understand there have been horrible abuses in the past, by both conniving and clueless parents out there, that have necessitated a steady tightening of the rules, but we have reached a point of absurdity.

 

In reading all six pages of “KHSAA Bylaw 6 - Transfer Rule”, several notable highlights emerge.

 

The backbone of the bylaw is the assertion that any student in grades nine through twelve that has already participated in any varsity game in any sport at any school who then transfers schools shall be ineligible to participate in interscholastic athletics at any level in any sport for one year from the date of enrollment in the new school.

 

Pretty clear cut, but on its own would result in some very unfair treatment of kids whose circumstances required them to change schools during their four years of high school.

 

For this reason, there are currently eight exceptions that could justify a waiver of ineligibility. First on the list is “a bona fide change in residence by the parents and student that precedes a student’s change of schools.”

 

No problem here for Euton, Jackson or others who have moved their entire households into a new school district.

 

The hook is there are five “exceptions to the exceptions”, that can nullify one of the eight original exceptions, thereby allowing the Commissioner in his/her full discretion to refuse to grant a waiver. Number three reads:

 

“3) If the change in schools is motivated in whole or part by a desire to participate in athletics at the new school;”

 

This is what is being used to hang Euton and Jackson, and is a “NO WIN” situation for honest/intelligent parents.

 

This is one of the most feebly constructed “Catch 22” rules on the books. IMO it should be referred to as the “Liar or Moron” clause. In cases with clearly talented student athletes whose families need to relocate for a completely legitimate reason, only a liar would deny that athletics are a part of their evaluation process for which neighborhood and school district they ultimately move. Only a complete idiot would neglect to consider how athletics might better equip their child for the opportunity to continue their education in college. For less talented kids… who cares? I mean really, if they can make the team, let ‘em play. This is absolutely absurd as it is written.

 

The saddest part of all is that only a completely honest and thoughtful parent can be nailed down by this rule. (Liars, cheaters and complete idiots have the best chance to sneak past it.) For those of you who want to slam dad Euton, or a 16 year-old kid (Jackson) for stating (what any sensible person already should know is) the truth publicly, (and would at least have thought yourselves—if not actually said out loud—if you were in their shoes) as if by keeping their mouths shut they could have “sneaked a couple past” the KHSAA shame on you. Why have a rule so poorly written that it encourages (and by ineffective application rewards) dishonesty.

 

Is that the kind of integrity we should be teaching our kids? Not in my house, not in my state, not in my country.

 

Stomp out recruiting. Punish the offenders. But where no recruiting has taken place, don’t take away the freedom of parents to choose and do what they feel is absolutely the best for their children.

 

It’s time to rewrite a truly horribly constructed rule.

 

This rule is a blatant assault on our liberties. Our children are not the property of our state, the KHSAA or our school systems. I can’t believe anyone in the United States of America could calmly stand by and watch this freedom be stolen so boldly. It’s time to wake up.

You blew it at no dog line, your a Rose Hill supporter. Should have ended that short novel with "WAKE UP AMERICA" EARL PITTS OFF

Some of my thoughts on transfers as a whole: Bylaw 6 says you are ineligible when transferring. That is the starting point, ineligibility. If you transfer you are automatically ineligible. Now, after being ineligible, there are circumstances that will allow you to become eligible again. If the KHSAA deems it to be appropriate.

 

One of the big problems is that most think they are eligible first and that you have to be proved ineligible. That is backwards. You are ineligible and have to be prove eligibility. The burden of proof is on the transferee, not on the KHSAA.

 

"If you transfer you will not be able to play", that should be the mind set when a player transfers. Not, "I will transfer and they will not be able to prove that I transferred for athletics".

You blew it at no dog line, your a Rose Hill supporter. Should have ended that short novel with "WAKE UP AMERICA" EARL PITTS OFF

:lol: Last time I checked, I don't have a child named Chad or Dakotah. Wouldn't mind if they were mine, they are both outstanding young men.

 

Not my dogs, not my fight. Poor rule IMO. :thumb:

Some of my thoughts on transfers as a whole: Bylaw 6 says you are ineligible when transferring. That is the starting point, ineligibility. If you transfer you are automatically ineligible. Now, after being ineligible, there are circumstances that will allow you to become eligible again. If the KHSAA deems it to be appropriate.

 

One of the big problems is that most think they are eligible first and that you have to be proved ineligible. That is backwards. You are ineligible and have to be prove eligibility. The burden of proof is on the transferee, not on the KHSAA.

 

"If you transfer you will not be able to play", that should be the mind set when a player transfers. Not, "I will transfer and they will not be able to prove that I transferred for athletics".

 

I know that I went out on a limb by placing facts in this discussion, as I do not normally get involved in transfer discussions, but before anyone tries to dispute my facts I will provide the first two paragraphs of Bylaw 6.

 

Bylaw 6. Transfer Rule

 

Sec. 1) Domestic Students

Any student who has been enrolled in grades nine (9) through

twelve (12) and has participated in any varsity game in any sport

at any school following enrollment in grade nine (9) and who then

transfers schools shall be ineligible for interscholastic athletics at

any level in any sport for one year from the date of enrollment in

the new school.

The Commissioner has discretion (but is not required) to waive

the period of ineligibility set forth above if one of the following

exceptions has been met. Determinations of whether a student

shall be granted a waiver pursuant to this rule shall be based on

the circumstances existing as of the date of enrollment at the new

school. The KHSAA shall not recognize as grounds for a waiver of

the period of ineligibility an argument that the educational needs

of the transferring students would be better served through a

transfer.

Any news about the Barber kid that left Rose Hill? Where is he going to attend school at?