I never said it did! I was going of birdsfanatic's post and quoting of that read into things more.

I know that, I was simply trying to help you understand the circumstances.

Well enoght is enoght, I been reading these posts for the past hour at least, you all made me miss my Cats game, all I caught was the final score. You all can talk about this all night if you want, but I'm going to bed. Good night.

For those of you without the Adobe Reader:

 

Bylaw 24. Forfeits

Sec. 1) Use of an Ineligible Player

When a student is declared ineligible, all contests in

which he/she has played while ineligible shall be forfeited

to the opposing team except that this may not apply to

state championship competition.

 

 

NOW....

 

What the tom, dick and harry does "may not apply" mean here ??

 

Does this imply the game will be played and if Highlands wins the KHSAA will THEN decide on whether they'll be awarded the Title ?!?!?

 

IMO, this would amount to putting an * next to their name if they win...

I just got back from Highlands and the rumours are flying. There were 2 lawyers in our group who said that the appeals judge who ruled against Mitchell today was from Boyle land. There are 2 Northern Ky appeals judges and it wasn't one of them. i can't believe Smith would stoop so low. Go Birds :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

 

Thats not even cute much less funny. Get a life BF.

So Highlands could win the state title without Mitchell and then be stripped?

No. By state championship competition, they mean "the playoffs."

 

We need to address this ASAP!

 

My undestanding was Michael Mitchell received a temporary injuction stateing he could play in all Birds games until further review or ruleing of the courts. That ruleing was issued today apparently 11/30/04. So from 11/29/04 and back he was eligible.... right?

Those of you who are ready to crucify the KHSAA need to consider a few things.

 

Fisrt and foremost I recall many many on here raking the KHSAA over the coals because they do not enforce rules on the books. This brought about the effort to exclude private schools from championships. I seem to remember many posters demanding the KHSAA enforce their rules. Now two popular schools (Danville and Highlands) have had KHSAA rulings go against them and there is an uproar of "let the kids play" and "don't let adults ruin it for the kids". Rules should be applied to ALL schools regardless of how popular they are. To suggest otherwise is absurd and bordering on hypocritical. You can not expect the KHSAA to try to enforce their rules and then just back down at the threat of legal action. I applaud the KHSAA for following through on this.

 

There have been options here if any of the adults involved had gone the other direction all of this ugliness could have been avoided.

 

First, for whatever reason the player and his parents decided he needed to attend Highlands. They petitioned the KHSAA for a waiver of the transfer rule and it was denied. At that point the parents and the player could have accepted the ruling and he could have returned to his original school (unless of course there were bridges burned) and played his senior year. If the kid transfered to Highlands for the superior academics then football shouldn't matter. If however he chose to transfer just to play on the higher profile Highlands football team then he was rightly rule inelligible. Finally, remember it was the players parents that chose to take the KHSAA to court.

 

Second, Dale Mueller could have said no. He put his team at risk knowing that the courts could ultimately rule against this one player. He did not have to play the kid. Ultimately I believe that he let the possible benefits of having this one player over ride the possible detrement to the rest of his players. That is inexcusable.

 

If there are any adults to blame for what's happening to the other players from Highlands and Boyle then those adults are this players parents and Dale Mueller not te KHSAA who are just trying to apply their rules.

The thinking behind this rule is dog doodoo. So they have to forfeit the regular season games because an ineligiable player played. Yet even though that ineligiable player played in the state tourney they dont have to forfeit those games. The KHSAA is talking out of both ends of their mouth with that rule.

 

You are killing me, I luv it!! :laugh:

 

Quick!! Go check and see if Dudley and company are being optomistic and practicing!!!!

The sad thing is if the KHSAA would have been consistent with this rule from day one we wouldn't be having this problem right now. The first time they granted a waiver of this rule they opened up a can of worms.

We have a winner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What the tom, dick and harry does "may not apply" mean here ??n..

 

That depends on what your definition of IS IS :scared:

We need to address this ASAP!

 

My undestanding was Michael Mitchell received a temporary injuction stateing he could play in all Birds games until further review or ruleing of the courts. That ruleing was issued today apparently 11/30/04. So from 11/29/04 and back he was eligable.... right?

 

No.

 

The temporary injuction gave him protection from KHSAA sanctions but only IF it held up under appeal. The appeals court ruled against the Mitchells and overturned the lower courts ruling. So the temporary injunction is in effect meaningless. And the KHSAA ruling of ineligibility from the start prevails. This means that any game he played in must be forfeited.

We need to address this ASAP!

 

My undestanding was Michael Mitchell received a temporary injuction stateing he could play in all Birds games until further review or ruleing of the courts. That ruleing was issued today apparently 11/30/04. So from 11/29/04 and back he was eligable.... right?

 

 

 

ANYBODY?

You are killing me, I luv it!! :laugh:

 

Quick!! Go check and see if Dudley and company are being optomistic and practicing!!!!

 

Need to get a reality check, because it aint only Bell County fans that has been saying the kind of things he said all night, from what I have been reading alot of people has been saying the same as ukbellco14 on this situation...

Sounds right Sportz Addict, from here on out he is inneligable.

oneijoe, I believe HHS was listed as a defendant when the Mitchell's took it to court. I'm not disagreeing with you but what do you tell the kid when the courts ruled in his favor. The sad thing is if the KHSAA would have been consistent with this rule from day one we wouldn't be having this problem right now. The first time they granted a waiver of this rule they opened up a can of worms.

There are times when a waiver is needed. I had a friend that ran CC for Assumption, but she transfered to Manual for her senior year because she had run out of classes to take at Assumption (she was a very advanced student,currently at Princeton). She was granted a waiver to run for Manual because she was able to show beyond doubt that her transfer had nothing to do with athletics.