Is it possible the KHSAA felt there were extenuating circumstances ?

Is it possible the KHSAA felt there were extenuating circumstances ?

 

They had been no extenuating circumstances since they ruled them ineligible a few weeks back for not having a change of address. Only thing that changed is they appealed.

They had been no extenuating circumstances since they ruled them ineligible a few weeks back for not having a change of address. Only thing that changed is they appealed.

 

Doesn't the KHSAA always go the ineligible route first before hearing an appeal? I don't know anything about this case but in the past athletes have had the one-year ban waived due to other circumstances.

:lol:Why have rules ?

Is it possible the KHSAA felt there were extenuating circumstances ?

 

This is probably what occurred. The problem is that bylaw 6 does not allow for extenuating circumstances. The exceptions are clearly listed. Neither qualified for any of them.

 

Don't get me wrong. I don't care that they are eligible. But why hold others to the rule.

I don't either or much about the situation, but if they were going from private to public, maybe the economy had something to do with it? I don't know the tuition cost at Rose Hill, but I am sure it is not cheap.

I don't either or much about the situation, but if they were going from private to public, maybe the economy had something to do with it? I don't know the tuition cost at Rose Hill, but I am sure it is not cheap.

 

You may be right, but again the bylaws don't allow for that to be used as an exemption.

I agree, just trying to get a few possible explanations. What if someone or a family changed religions?

I'm not trying to argue against these kids being found eligible. I am glad for them. I am just saying if the KHSAA is not going to follow their own rule in this case. Don't hold others to the rule.

Didn't they rule Tanner Shotwell ineligible for the same thing last year? He was not allowed to play his sophmore year at Scott County.

You know how the police bring in small time crooks all the time and give them some sort of immunity if they will turn over state's evidence to go after the big timer? Maybe the KHSAA dangled a deal in front of the faces of these boys to turn over evidence against the mighty Rose Hill basketball machine in order for them to be declared eligible. Maybe this was the KHSAA's effort to pull out the bottom card on Rose Hill's house of cards and now everyone will see the house of cards tumble! It is pretty much common knowledge that there are forces both inside and outside the Rose Hill program that are trying to change the motis operandi of the tiny Christian school located in Ashland. What is very ironic about this whole situation is the very school...officially named Paul G. Blazer High School...that has cried and moaned the most, for very good reason mind you, about all the student athletes they have lost to Rose Hill over the years, will now serve as the beneficiary of the house of cards tumbling. Should Blazer take the high road and live up to their beliefs and as an institution stand up and say that they will not play those young men until they have sat out their year as mandated by the very rules of which they have so diligently quoted time and time again!

 

Seriously, why not just make the state open enrollment and allow any student to play at any school they want to as long as they are enrolled at that school on the first day of school!

I had two children that went to RH from the beginning of their education until last year. We pulled them out, I know this sounds ridiculous but, for academic reasons. One child was in high school and participated in sports. We, as Christian parents, knew by KHSAA rules our child would have to sit out a year, the RIGHT thing to do, and didn't apply for eligibility. One sat out the year athletically as is the penalty for such action.

 

My question is how can "Christian" parents allow their children to play when the rule HAS NOT been satisfied for eligibility? What message are we sending our children? What damage are we doing to the Church as "Christians" that willingly break rules?

 

I am happy for these two young men that can immediately play a sport they love. I've watched them many times and will continue to do so. They're very good players and will help Ashland immediately.

Wow. With that logic, the next time I get pulled over for speeding and the officer lets me off with a warning, I shall insist that he fine me because as a Christian I must abide by the rules.

 

 

That's just wacky!!!!

Didn't they rule Tanner Shotwell ineligible for the same thing last year? He was not allowed to play his sophmore year at Scott County.

 

Exactly! That's why this is a complete double standard. I don't anything about the Rose Hill kids other than the fact they enrolled at Rose Hill as freshman, played there 2 years, transferred to Ashland and apparently did not move. Then, got ruled eligible.

 

For Shotwell, it is the same thing -- Enrolled at LCA as a freshman, played 1 year, transferred to Scott County and definintely did not move. Unfortunately for Shotwell, the last sentence reads .... Then, got ruled INELIGIBLE.

I had two children that went to RH from the beginning of their education until last year. We pulled them out, I know this sounds ridiculous but, for academic reasons. One child was in high school and participated in sports. We, as Christian parents, knew by KHSAA rules our child would have to sit out a year, the RIGHT thing to do, and didn't apply for eligibility. One sat out the year athletically as is the penalty for such action.

 

My question is how can "Christian" parents allow their children to play when the rule HAS NOT been satisfied for eligibility? What message are we sending our children? What damage are we doing to the Church as "Christians" that willingly break rules?

 

I am happy for these two young men that can immediately play a sport they love. I've watched them many times and will continue to do so. They're very good players and will help Ashland immediately.

 

The bylaws are in place. There is no exception to the transfer rule except those which are specifically listed. There is no exception in the bylaws to allow a player to transfer if they will testify against someone, or for any other reason not listed.

By KAR the KHSAA does not have the authority to rule these players eligible. They are in violation of their own rules. That is the problem with the KHSAA, they make up rules as they go.

 

Again I just want to say I don't have a problem with Corey and Keyle being found eligible. My problem is other players in the state are setting out being restrained by the rules.