Just heard the State Board unanimously passed a new Bylaw it will require the KHSAA to enact that protects a school from sanction or retaliation by the KHSAA when the school allows a student-athlete to play pursuant to a court order or injunction.

 

Bravo to BOE member Doug Hubbard, who started talking about this 2 years ago, and state rep. Katie Stine, who introduced legislation on it that unfortunately did not make it out of committee before the end of the legislative session. Good to see this Board have a spine.

Good move. The KHSAA was basically stating that if the school obeyed a court order, they could be punished. This is the right thing to do.

The problem is that it's usually easy to find a local judge that will issue an injunction. I realize some people think the KHSAA is the Gestapo, but this just makes it easier to circumvent KHSAA transfer rules.

The rules have always been somewhat porous, anyway.....

The problem is that it's usually easy to find a local judge that will issue an injunction. I realize some people think the KHSAA is the Gestapo, but this just makes it easier to circumvent KHSAA transfer rules.

This is my concern as well. I know that a local judge would be willing to sign an injunction for a local school, especially in an election year.

 

But, at the same time, I don't think that anyone should be penalized for following a court order, I mean who is going to get away with not following a court order?

 

The proverbial Catch 22.

It is still good to see the BOE take a stand.:thumb:

I read the article in this morning's Herald Leader. I thought it was a great article.

This is my concern as well. I know that a local judge would be willing to sign an injunction for a local school, especially in an election year.

 

But, at the same time, I don't think that anyone should be penalized for following a court order, I mean who is going to get away with not following a court order?

 

The proverbial Catch 22.

 

Agree on both counts.

The state board is responding to political pressure because everyone thinks they are a special case.

 

The courts should stay out of it.

 

The KHSAA is governed by the schools. Let the schools decide.

KHSAA gets their charter from BOE. Without BOE, they don't exist. They have been operating as if they are not subject to scrutiny or review, and now they've been "reined in." That's what happens when you occasionally get too big for your britches.

I think it comes down to people being mad because they haven't gotten their way.

 

You heard criticism a few years ago because there was too much recruiting, and now people are mad because some of that has been addressed and they lost their case.

I think it comes down to people being mad because they haven't gotten their way.

 

You heard criticism a few years ago because there was too much recruiting, and now people are mad because some of that has been addressed and they lost their case.

 

Which would be fine and good, except you conveniently forgot to mention that in the Mitchell case there was ZERO evidence of recruiting.

 

I've got no problem with busting the chops of any coach or school that is recruiting, but without such evidence, you should not, you cannot, impose sanctions. Athletics may be a privilege as some like to say, but is a very important privilege,as the popularity of this site proves, and that privilege should not be taken away without evidence.

 

And orders of the judiciary should not be ignored, even those that are wrong. Our society is based on following the rule of law as interpreted by the courts.

 

If there are judges that will improperly issue injunctions, that is an issue for the voters and the Ky Supreme Court to address; not the KHSAA.

Which would be fine and good, except you conveniently forgot to mention that in the Mitchell case there was ZERO evidence of recruiting.

 

I've got no problem with busting the chops of any coach or school that is recruiting, but without such evidence, you should not, you cannot, impose sanctions. Athletics may be a privilege as some like to say, but is a very important privilege,as the popularity of this site proves, and that privilege should not be taken away without evidence.

 

And orders of the judiciary should not be ignored, even those that are wrong. Our society is based on following the rule of law as interpreted by the courts.

 

If there are judges that will improperly issue injunctions, that is an issue for the voters and the Ky Supreme Court to address; not the KHSAA.

I agree completely, good explanation LN.

Which would be fine and good, except you conveniently forgot to mention that in the Mitchell case there was ZERO evidence of recruiting.

 

I've got no problem with busting the chops of any coach or school that is recruiting, but without such evidence, you should not, you cannot, impose sanctions. Athletics may be a privilege as some like to say, but is a very important privilege,as the popularity of this site proves, and that privilege should not be taken away without evidence.

 

And orders of the judiciary should not be ignored, even those that are wrong. Our society is based on following the rule of law as interpreted by the courts.

 

If there are judges that will improperly issue injunctions, that is an issue for the voters and the Ky Supreme Court to address; not the KHSAA.

 

 

Just curous then if there was no recruiting why the injunction, something had to go on for them to be 2-13 and State Cahmps, I am asking not implying anything, you obviously know more than I do and would like to know

Just curous then if there was no recruiting why the injunction, something had to go on for them to be 2-13 and State Cahmps, I am asking not implying anything, you obviously know more than I do and would like to know

 

Without wanting to get too deeply into it again (much to the joy of many, many BGPers, I'm sure ), Mitchell was denied eligibilty because the KHSAA did not think there was a bona fide change of residence. The sanctions imposed by the KHSAA had nothing to do with recruiting and recruiting by Highlands was never alleged by the KHSAA. Rather, the sanctions were imposed against Highlands because they played Mitchell while there was a termporary injunction holding Mitchell was eligible but the injunction was later overturned. It's important to note that Highlands only played the kid when the courts said he was eligible and did not play him when the courts said he was ineligible.