It is not a reversal. All students are ruled ineligible. That is the rule. If you change schools you sit out a year - been there forever. What HC probably had to do was prove that the kid met an exception to the rule. Again the rule is no play for one year if you change schools. Then there are specific exceptions.

It is not a reversal. All students are ruled ineligible. That is the rule. If you change schools you sit out a year - been there forever. What HC probably had to do was prove that the kid met an exception to the rule. Again the rule is no play for one year if you change schools. Then there are specific exceptions.

If having one's home destroyed by a natural disaster, and then facing the need to relocate hundreds of miles away from home and friends to live with relatives in another state isn't a legitimate exception to the rule, the rule needs revision.

 

If on the other hand it is permissible to play right away for a public school, but be ruled ineligible for play at a private school, the KHSAA is out of touch with what is fair, and is clearly driven by a pro public school agenda.

 

How can they propose to fairly represent both systems when they clearly favor one over the other?

It is not a reversal. All students are ruled ineligible. That is the rule. If you change schools you sit out a year - been there forever. What HC probably had to do was prove that the kid met an exception to the rule. Again the rule is no play for one year if you change schools. Then there are specific exceptions.

 

The KHSAA had no trouble ruling something like 28 evacuees that went to public schools eligible immediately.

My facts are fine!! In your haste to defend the KHSAA, you may want to actually read my post?? I said "keep THE political agendas", not THEIR!! Please don't tell me that 24 other similar cases are immediately ruled OK to play, but this one drags out for a couple weeks; and somebody's not playing to somebody??

From what I read (and not in the newspaper, which is usually incorrect anyway), the Association waived Bylaw 6 pretty much summarily. But to waive tuition at a private school involves ignoring Bylaw 10 (recruiting). Without question, that should be held to a higher standard. Check with Alabama who isn't waiving anything, and other states who are not. Not all states believe that these students should result in summary waivers of eligibility rules. In this case, the KHSAA did exactly the right thing in making sure its member schools didn't ignore every rule. Texas is already dealing with "students" who worked their way into the shelters, began trying to go to school, and actually began playing. And they turned out to be 22 or 23 years old. So if they (KHSAA) chose to delay any case involving a waiver of anything by Bylaw 6, it probably was a wise move in the eyes of its 282 schools. (or at least all of them except those that wanted to waive tuition)

When we get uptight about assisted tuition, do we also apply this same doctrine to free lunches, free books, etc? If the parents must pay the private school tuition then the parents should be paying all of the incidental costs at public schools. If assistance is taboo for the privates, shouldn't it also be for the publics? Or on the other hand, are some saying that while my assistance is recruiting, yours is merely compassion? I say the KHSAA should try being evenhanded and either let them all play or let none of them play. Otherwise, it is really discriminatory whether you want to define it that way or not.

From what I read (and not in the newspaper, which is usually incorrect anyway), the Association waived Bylaw 6 pretty much summarily. But to waive tuition at a private school involves ignoring Bylaw 10 (recruiting). Without question, that should be held to a higher standard. Check with Alabama who isn't waiving anything, and other states who are not. Not all states believe that these students should result in summary waivers of eligibility rules. In this case, the KHSAA did exactly the right thing in making sure its member schools didn't ignore every rule. Texas is already dealing with "students" who worked their way into the shelters, began trying to go to school, and actually began playing. And they turned out to be 22 or 23 years old. So if they (KHSAA) chose to delay any case involving a waiver of anything by Bylaw 6, it probably was a wise move in the eyes of its 282 schools. (or at least all of them except those that wanted to waive tuition)

 

Again I'll ask these questions:

 

1. Did this students parents pay tuition in LA? I'll assume they did, so the money exist somewhere. To make them pay again or account for the money at this time is a little silly is it not, considering the area of their house and school is not accessible?

 

2. All the other students who were allowed to play immediately are undoubtedly receiving free "benefits" such as housing, transportation, food, clothing by others unless they somehow they managed to pack up all their belongings before fleeing and then paid for housing here.

 

Again either say no one can play or everyone can play.

THe K.H S.A.A. wanted to protect the public schools from Covington Holy Cross becoming more of a powerhouse than it now is .

THe K.H S.A.A. wanted to protect the public schools from Covington Holy Cross becoming more of a powerhouse than it now is .

I know thats the funny part about all this. If this was NCC or CCH or Trinity for that matter this might make a little more sense to scrutinize in my mind. But no one player was going to make HC be any better the 3rd seed in their district.

This whole situation is ridiculous. If 20 some kids are eligible to play at public schools with free tuition, free breakfast, free lunch, free uniforms and shoes from boosters, then one kid should be able to play at a private school.

Just read in another thread that the KHSAA has flipped their initial ruling and this kid is now eligible to play, if this is true, kudos to the KHSAA. :thumb:

 

http://www.bluegrasspreps.com/showthread.php?t=77232