Two things here:

 

One, it was rumored that Hammond forbid his players from playing outside the framework of their summer ball team, which was supposed to be comprised of Henry Clay players. With the recent proliferation of many different Central Kentucky travel ball programs, this mandate somewhat limited his high school players from playing for these teams which would give them outstanding college and professional exposure. From what I understand, this has become a big point of contention at HC, especially with guys like Will Hurt who played for the Kentucky Baseball Club last year, where he began to gain notoriety already, still as a freshman.

 

Two: Lexington Catholic's head coach is a big part of the Kentucky baseball club program, and surely there were conversations between he and the Hurts regarding the prohibitive situation of summer ball and subsequent exposure. It would be a long shot to say that Hurt simply decided on a whim to transfer to Lex Cath - there were almost certainly discussions about this move conducted behind closed doors which could be construed as "recruiting."

 

It feels as though neither parties in this situation are totally free and clear of guilt. The fact of the matter, though, is that if Hammond had allowed his players to do whatever they wish for summer ball, then this whole situation could have been avoided. When it all comes down to it, baseball should be about the kids and they should be free to do whatever they want outside of the high school season so that they can gain the best chances to play after college if that's what they desire.

 

I'm sorry to hear about Coach Hammond's dismissal, as I've heard nothing but great things about him, but I'm also glad that the player in the situation will not be penalized for transferring because after all, it's about the kids, not the adults as we sometimes forget.

 

Nice synopsis. From appearances, there were multiple "recruiting" issues here, but only one person thrown under the bus?

 

The summer ball team issue isn't new... been around for years. There are arguments to be made for both sides of this issue. However, a player leaves his HS team to go play for another travel team and then transfers to that coach's HS program. That's not a problem?

In the vast marjority of transfer cases, the motivation behind a transfer is rarely known. I do not believe that the KHSAA would have ruled the kid eligible if they had evidence that the transfer was athletically motivated.

 

What is known is that Hammond broke KHSAA rules.

 

Also no matter if the reason behind the transfer was legit or not, I find it very troubling that an adult educator would send an email asking the Lex. Cath. coach not to play the kid. That speaks more to me about the character of the coach than the 17 years he put into the program. Sounds like a bitter person with a fragile ego.

In the vast marjority of transfer cases, the motivation behind a transfer is rarely known. I do not believe that the KHSAA would have ruled the kid eligible if they had evidence that the transfer was athletically motivated.

 

What is known is that Hammond broke KHSAA rules.

 

Also no matter if the reason behind the transfer was legit or not, I find it very troubling that an adult educator would send an email asking the Lex. Cath. coach not to play the kid. That speaks more to me about the character of the coach than the 17 years he put into the program. Sounds like a bitter person with a fragile ego.

 

Really? One mistake/mental lapse/error of judgement/or even flat out stupid action entirely outweighs 17 years of high-quality (based on other people's statements - I do not know the man) behavior? Not sure I would summarize anything quite so succintly. If he had shot someone, or robbed someone, or committed arson, then that's one thing. But his actions were so entirely egregious as to undermine his entire past career?

Really? One mistake/mental lapse/error of judgement/or even flat out stupid action entirely outweighs 17 years of high-quality (based on other people's statements - I do not know the man) behavior? Not sure I would summarize anything quite so succintly. If he had shot someone, or robbed someone, or committed arson, then that's one thing. But his actions were so entirely egregious as to undermine his entire past career?

 

You might be right. I hate to paint with such a broad brush, but...

 

Again, to me the most troubling part of this is his email to the Lex. Cath. coach asking him not to play the kid. Youth sports have way too many coaches who love the sport more than they love the kids playing the sport. By his actions I would question if this were not the case with this guy and if that were so my guess is that it isn't the first time in 17 years that he has put the sport in front of the athlete.

 

However, he didn't get fired for that, he got fired for breaking the KHSAA rules.

You might be right. I hate to paint with such a broad brush, but...

 

Again, to me the most troubling part of this is his email to the Lex. Cath. coach asking him not to play the kid. Youth sports have way too many coaches who love the sport more than they love the kids playing the sport. By his actions I would question if this were not the case with this guy and if that were so my guess is that it isn't the first time in 17 years that he has put the sport in front of the athlete.

 

However, he didn't get fired for that, he got fired for breaking the KHSAA rules.

 

From what information was contained in the story, I completely agree with you on this point as it applies to the coach. I have some serious questions about the father/kid and their actions also, however.

Hotshot, what are you talking about? Did you take the time to read the article? The KHSAA ruled him ineligible after investigating the matter. Then a hearing was held before a hearing officer and the ruling was upheld. You think they did that based on "no evidence"? Do you really think this kid's parents all of the sudden decided their son needed a Catholic education? I guess it's just a coincidence that the kid is pretty good in baseball and the Catholic school he transferred to is the defending state champion in baseball. And the fact that the kid played on a summer team coached by none other than Lex Cath's head coach had absolutely nothing to do with his decision to switch schools. Sounds like there was mountain of evidence to support the initial ruling and what Hammond said or did after the fact should have had no bearing in the matter.

For the record, I'm glad the kid is allowed to play. The sit out penalty for transferring is not fairly or uniformly enforced and should be abolished in my opinion. The KHSAA used Hammond as a scapegoat because they still have no clue how to enforce the transfer rule. Unfortunately, this cost a good coach his job. The sad thing is that I think both Hammond, Clary and KBC have the best interest of kids at heart but the desire to win I think clouded better judgment on both sides. Since the kid actually went ahead and transferred Hammond should have just let it go, filed no objection and wished his former player well. Sad that this cost him his job.

Hotshot, what are you talking about? Did you take the time to read the article? The KHSAA ruled him ineligible after investigating the matter. Then a hearing was held before a hearing officer and the ruling was upheld. You think they did that based on "no evidence"? Do you really think this kid's parents all of the sudden decided their son needed a Catholic education? I guess it's just a coincidence that the kid is pretty good in baseball and the Catholic school he transferred to is the defending state champion in baseball. And the fact that the kid played on a summer team coached by none other than Lex Cath's head coach had absolutely nothing to do with his decision to switch schools. Sounds like there was mountain of evidence to support the initial ruling and what Hammond said or did after the fact should have had no bearing in the matter.

For the record, I'm glad the kid is allowed to play. The sit out penalty for transferring is not fairly or uniformly enforced and should be abolished in my opinion. The KHSAA used Hammond as a scapegoat because they still have no clue how to enforce the transfer rule. Unfortunately, this cost a good coach his job. The sad thing is that I think both Hammond, Clary and KBC have the best interest of kids at heart but the desire to win I think clouded better judgment on both sides. Since the kid actually went ahead and transferred Hammond should have just let it go, filed no objection and wished his former player well. Sad that this cost him his job.

 

I will ask the same question of you. Did you take the time to read the article?

 

The ineligible ruling and the hearing officer upholding the ruling were based at lease in part on Hammonds testimony. In the article it states that, "evidence of the e-mails casts doubt on the credibility" of Hammond's testimony "and calls into question whether or not the original objection of Henry Clay was a valid objection."

 

To draw any conclusions about why the Hurt's chose to move their son is purely speculation. unless you are the family or the family has communicated to you about their motivation. You also forgot to mention that the article states that Hurt's moved "across town", did this play a part too? Who knows? It would be just as much speculation saying this was the reason as saying it was because the kid was a good baseball player.

 

One this for certain there is nothing to make me believe that Hammond had anyone's best interest at heart other than his own. However, he lost his job for breaking the rules.

For the record, I'm glad the kid is allowed to play. The sit out penalty for transferring is not fairly or uniformly enforced and should be abolished in my opinion. The KHSAA used Hammond as a scapegoat because they still have no clue how to enforce the transfer rule. Unfortunately, this cost a good coach his job. The sad thing is that I think both Hammond, Clary and KBC have the best interest of kids at heart but the desire to win I think clouded better judgment on both sides. Since the kid actually went ahead and transferred Hammond should have just let it go, filed no objection and wished his former player well. Sad that this cost him his job.

 

No that the KHSAA is blameless in this situation, but they weren't responsible for the coach's termination, his school was. Which is all the more curious - certainly the school officials would have a clear and detailed history of the man's background and totality of his coaching/teaching career. Unless there were previous transgressions or something a bit more serious not disclosed relative to this situation, it sure seems a tough punishment. Makes one wonder why a suspension of some sort would not have been sufficient.

How did the email between coaches come out?

Did the Lex Cath coach send it to the super?

How did the email between coaches come out?

Did the Lex Cath coach send it to the super?

 

Pure speculation, but this sounds plausible:

 

1) LCC coach mentions it to father.

2) Father, already seeking to exact some blood from HC coach, tells KHSAA.

3) KHSAA contacts LCC coach and requests copies.

4) LCC coach complies.

5) KHSAA forwards emails to HC administrators.

 

Again, guessing, but it's reasonable.

We can debate the firing as to it being justified.

 

We cannot debate that the man was not very smart.

 

We cannot debate (and I'm assuming the emails actually exist) that the coach exercised a serious lack of maturity in asking the LexCath coach to not play the kid.

 

Again, assuming all of these emails exist, I'd have to seriously question if I had the right guy in place. We need leaders with proper perspective.

How did the email between coaches come out?

Did the Lex Cath coach send it to the super?

 

No.

I will ask the same question of you. Did you take the time to read the article?

 

The ineligible ruling and the hearing officer upholding the ruling were based at lease in part on Hammonds testimony. In the article it states that, "evidence of the e-mails casts doubt on the credibility" of Hammond's testimony "and calls into question whether or not the original objection of Henry Clay was a valid objection."

 

To draw any conclusions about why the Hurt's chose to move their son is purely speculation. unless you are the family or the family has communicated to you about their motivation. You also forgot to mention that the article states that Hurt's moved "across town", did this play a part too? Who knows? It would be just as much speculation saying this was the reason as saying it was because the kid was a good baseball player.

 

One this for certain there is nothing to make me believe that Hammond had anyone's best interest at heart other than his own. However, he lost his job for breaking the rules.

 

#1--Please tell me how Hammond's emails after the kid transferreed and after he was ruled ineligible had anything to do with the reason why this kid tranferred to begin with?

#2--Suppose the emails demonstrate Hammond is a cheating, good for nothing coach....so what?? The KHSAA rules don't allow for transfers because you're coach is a bad guy. Hammond's credibility wasn't the issue. The issue was whether the move was a "bona fide" change of residence and as you say Hammond's testimony or opinion on that would largely be irrelevant as speculation. What's not speculation is that the kid's Dad had a disagreement over summer ball with Hammond, played summer ball for Lex's Cath coach and then "moved" and then transferred to Lex Cath.

#3--"moved across town"....I lived in Lexington for 4 years and unless they've recently annexed Bourbon County you can pretty much travel by car and get anywhere in 20 minutes in Fayette County so that dog won't hunt.

No that the KHSAA is blameless in this situation, but they weren't responsible for the coach's termination, his school was. Which is all the more curious - certainly the school officials would have a clear and detailed history of the man's background and totality of his coaching/teaching career. Unless there were previous transgressions or something a bit more serious not disclosed relative to this situation, it sure seems a tough punishment. Makes one wonder why a suspension of some sort would not have been sufficient.

 

I agree the KHSAA wasn't responsible for Hammond's termination...the term "scapegoat" refers to the KHSAA's stated reason for reversing their ruling on the kid's eligibility--Hammond. Again, I'm glad the kid is eligible because I hate the transfer rule to begin with. Allow all kids to transfer once without any questions being asked and quit making families go through these bogus "moves across town".

Obviously, asking for the kid not to play hits a chord with people. No one wants to see a young student athlete sit out. However, I wonder about this request and the context it was made in by Hammond. Regardless, it was probably a very poor choice on his part.

 

BUT

 

Did he say.... I know your summer team recruited my kid and then recruited him to come there, so you do the right thing at Lex Cath and don't play the kid regardless because it is wrong what has happened.

 

OR

 

Did he say... I hate this dad and I'm gonna show him. Stick with me buddy and don't play his kid and I'll laugh my $$$ off.