KHSAA Ruling Based On Bylaws - By Wilson Sears

[Log Mountain Boy]

And that's the danger of believing what you hear. I've been absolutely amazed at the incorrect information people receive on numerous athletically related issues. It really is surprising how much mis information is out there. Thank goodness that this site is present to correct a lot of that mis-information. I wouldn't hold the rest of the transfer info that you received about LexCath too highly either. Trust me when I say this: from what I've been told by people "in the know" is that the mentality on the KHSAA is (and has been for several years) to not approve transfers unless there is a compelling case for it.

 

Yeah I was trying to be careful how I worded that, but I should have been more careful until I knew for sure. I am sure about Sanford and I do know 2 guards from Bryan Station played summer ball with LexCath.

[Log Mountain Boy]

I have to disagree that they are trying to correct the problem now. The two most high profile transfers in the state are ineligible in spite of legitimate moves. Two kids leave JBS for Knox Central and are eligible because JBS may or may not close its doors. There are many many examples where kids in very similar situations are ruled differently by the KHSAA.

It's been a problem for a long, long time and it continues to be a big problem imo.

 

I believe its Knott Co. isn't it? I was told by a friend that they did not move, but just transferred and were made eligible. I am glad they are getting to play, but don't understand why. Maybe there is more to it than meets the eye.

I wonder if this is a situation (pure speculation, thinkin outloud) where the boys were ruled eligible because they can't afford to go to June Buchanon any more?

[leatherneck]

Yeah I was trying to be careful how I worded that, but I should have been more careful until I knew for sure. I am sure about Sanford and I do know 2 guards from Bryan Station played summer ball with LexCath.

 

Did they get varsity minutes at Bryan Station?

[Log Mountain Boy]

Did they get varsity minutes at Bryan Station?

 

My understanding is one did and will be a sophomore. The other may have, but he is only going to be a freshman, so does that make it okay? I know otherwise he would be fine.

[leatherneck]

Going back to Wilson Sears claim that you must know the background of certain situations to understand and appreciate the apparently arbitrary rulings. He is correct apparently. It seems the formal Bylaws are so full of holes that they now rely more on precident setting 'Case Situations' than the actual formal Bylaws.

 

Quote from article from HL:

 

 

 

The problem - There is no Bylaw 6-16. There is a Case BL-6-16.

 

Bylaw 6 says nothing about “athletic advantage" or “seeking a superior athletic team". Nada. It is completely silent on the issue.

 

Somewhere, somehow someone elected to ADD (not merely interpret) to the bylaw. Who, when, why how, was it voted on by the members?

 

The existence of these 'Case Situations' is a serious problem with the KHSAA bylaws. Mr Wilson is correct in that you can apparently only appreciate the rulings if you know the situations behind the Case Situations.

 

What is really needed is a rewrite of the bylaws that incorporates the case situations.

 

 

Bylaw 6 states, and I quote "Satisfying of one of the exceptions (a through h) will not be considered valid and a waiver of the period shall not be granted-....3) if the change in schools is motivated in whole in part by a desire to participate in athletics at the new school".

 

Doesn't use the exact language that you used, but I think covers the intent. Honestly, I think the language is overly broad as it would probably negate the eligibility of every athlete that is forced to move to a new urban community in Ky where there are several high schools to choose from. For example, a family moves from Texas to Louisville. A member of the family is a good swimmer. The family selects St. X, in part, because of its strong swimming program. Does any parent on here think that such should result in the kid being ineligible? This one sure doesn't.

[HDE]

I wonder if this is a situation (pure speculation, thinkin outloud) where the boys were ruled eligible because they can't afford to go to June Buchanon any more?

 

I'm pretty sure that's not it from what I've been told by several people.

[Plato]

I believe its Knott Co. isn't it? I was told by a friend that they did not move, but just transferred and were made eligible. I am glad they are getting to play, but don't understand why. Maybe there is more to it than meets the eye.

I wonder if this is a situation (pure speculation, thinkin outloud) where the boys were ruled eligible because they can't afford to go to June Buchanon any more?

 

Knott Co is right. Sorry for mixing up the teams.

 

Not being able to afford the private school is not an exception to the Bylaw from what I read.

[Bluegrasscard]

Bylaw 6 states, and I quote "Satisfying of one of the exceptions (a through h) will not be considered valid and a waiver of the period shall not be granted-....3) if the change in schools is motivated in whole or part by a desire to participate in athletics at the new school".

 

Doesn't use the exact language that you used, but I think covers the intent. Honestly, I think the language is overly broad as it would probably negate the eligibility of every athlete that is forced to move to a new urban community in Ky where there are several high schools to choose from. For example, a family moves from Texas to Louisville. A member of the family is a good swimmer. The family selects St. X, in part, because of its strong swimming program. Does any parent on here think that such should result in the kid being ineligible? This one sure doesn't.

 

Given that the wording BL-6-16 ends with a direct reference to paragraph in Sec 1), the authors think they have tied the intent directly to the 2004 update.

 

But, just for sport, I will say that the literal reading of the bylaw indicates that 'change in schools' must be motivated by 'desire to participate...'. Based on that, if the 'change in school' is triggered by another event, as in the current high profile basketball case, then the fact that the student plans to participate, and talks to the press about it, is not relavent. I would still contend that BL-6-16 has created a rule out of thin air that is not in the literal wording of the actual bylaw.

 

Your point on the swimming really represents the true problem. The Bylaws and Case Situations try to derive and anticipate peoples internal thinking such as 'motivation', 'desire', 'advantage', etc. This is the true source of the stupidity in this particular bylaw. The rules should be based on observable, direct actions or inactions by people. The rules should not rely on the commissioner being able correctly interpret the internal thinking of parents or students as they do now.

[Bluegrasscard]

My understanding is one did and will be a sophomore. The other may have, but he is only going to be a freshman, so does that make it okay? I know otherwise he would be fine.

 

 

You might want to check the facts on these also. LC has voluntarily adopted the transfer rule for incoming freshmen. It has been in place for at least 3 years, maybe longer. So if a MS student does play in a varsity game for another high school they will have to sit out their freshmen year. I think this rule was formalized for all schools this year as an alternative to the insane prop 2.

 

It is a well known practice by the public schools in Fayette to 'taint' 7th and 8th grade students by playing them for only a short time in a varsity game during a season.

[leatherneck]

Given that the wording BL-6-16 ends with a direct reference to paragraph in Sec 1), the authors think they have tied the intent directly to the 2004 update.

 

But, just for sport, I will say that the literal reading of the bylaw indicates that 'change in schools' must be motivated by 'desire to participate...'. Based on that, if the 'change in school' is triggered by another event, as in the current high profile basketball case, then the fact that the student plans to participate, and talks to the press about it, is not relavent. I would still contend that BL-6-16 has created a rule out of thin air that is not in the literal wording of the actual bylaw.

 

Your point on the swimming really represents the true problem. The Bylaws and Case Situations try to derive and anticipate peoples internal thinking such as 'motivation', 'desire', 'advantage', etc. This is the true source of the stupidity in this particular bylaw. The rules should be based on observable, direct actions or inactions by people. The rules should not rely on the commissioner being able correctly interpret the internal thinking of parents or students as they do now.

 

I agree with your post, particularly the bolded parts. Using my hypothethical again, if the family is relocated from Texas to Kentucky because of a job change and they kid ends up at St.X it should be a no brainer that the kid would be eligible. But the Euton case and some people's interpretation of Bylaw 6 gives me cause to wonder if such would be the case. I can see a kid being ineligible if the family has a bona fide change of residence of only a couple of miles, but even then I'm not so sure. Lets say the mother gets a big promotion and the family can then afford to move from say Dayton to Ft. Mitchell (easy Dayton fans, its only a hypothetical and no offense is intended) and they have a kid that is a good football player who played varsity football at Dayton. If the mother mentions to the press that the reasons they elected to move was they liked the community of Ft. Mitchell better, the homes were nicer and they thought the kid's chance of getting a football scholarship were better if he attended Beechwood, I don't think the kid should be ineligible.

 

What do other people think (and if you don't mind, indicate in your post if you are a parent)? I am a parent and I think the parental right to choose the best school for your child is a paramount right. Unless recruiting is proven the kid should be ineligible. I am certain that some people will manipulate the system, but so be it. You don't penalize those doing the right things for the right reasons, just to stop those that aren't. That's not the way this country is supposed to work. Mods, feel free to move this to a new thread if you feel I'm jacking this thread.

[jbckentucky]

This may be totally unrelated to this thread but we have a situation in our county where two brothers attend different county schools. A third brother is getting ready to enter Junior High and it is speculated he will attend the public city school so the family will most likely have three boys all attending different schools within the county. Each child is a good athlete and plays different sports. Ironically each child attends the school where that program is considered stronger in that sport. Just curious if this should raise a red flag to the KHSAA???? How do you say your sending your child to a certain school for the education when you have them spread out over three of the four choices in the county.

[All Tell]

You don't BUT KHSAA transfer rules have nothing to do with your initial choice of school, only your decision to change that school and athletics is certainly a valid reason for choosing a school.

 

FWIW I think it's great that you live in an area that gives parents and students that kind of freedon of choice.

[Bluegrasscard]

Unless recruiting is proven the kid should be ineligible.

 

I am pretty sure you meant 'eligible'. But wanted to verify.

[Bluegrasscard]

You don't BUT KHSAA transfer rules have nothing to do with your initial choice of school, only your decision to change that school and athletics is certainly a valid reason for choosing a school.

 

FWIW I think it's great that you live in an area that gives parents and students that kind of freedon of choice.

 

If 'initial choice' implies coming into Kentucky for the first time but may have participated in varsity sports then this may not be correct.

 

Check Case Situation BL-6-7. If coming from out of state you are automatically ineligible.

[jbckentucky]

You don't BUT KHSAA transfer rules have nothing to do with your initial choice of school, only your decision to change that school and athletics is certainly a valid reason for choosing a school.

 

FWIW I think it's great that you live in an area that gives parents and students that kind of freedon of choice.

 

That makes sense since all our private education options end with the 8th grade and then you have to choose between the local public options available. I know the students I described above attended a private school through the 8th grade. Thanks for the clarification.