First, in the article the principal (Nochta) said "ultimately it was my decision" so that is who is responsible for the firing.

 

Second, lets say the kid wasn't recruited by catholic. However, he played for HC then played for the KBC team coached by catholic's coaches and then transfers to catholic. OK he may not have been recruited but it looks bad. It is real easy to say he was recruited. Maybe that is why the kid was ruled ineligible by the KHSAA.

 

Third, the disgruntled parent didn't like Hammonds. Therefore Hammonds, should have never talked to the guy at all. The parent was setting Hammonds up for something and just hoping that Hammonds would say something that he could take to the board or to KHSAA to get Hammonds in trouble.

 

4th, Did Hammonds ever not act in the best interest in HC baseball? No he did not. He put HC baseball first. He should not want HC players playing for KBC because (obviously) they may transfer to a regional opponent. He should protest the transfer because the kid is playing for a team he must compete with. Hammonds behaved like a coach who put his team first, like it or not he put HC baseball first, not Catholic or the wants of kid or parent.

Therefore, he should never have been punished and certainly not fired. KHSAA didn't punish Hammonds, if they say he broke a rule then let them punish Hammonds or make a recommendation to the administration on how the situation should be handled. The only rule broken was attending a game during the dead period. If that is worthy of being fired then many coaches in this state would be. That's like getting 30 days in jail for j-walking.

 

Last, Stu Silberman should become the athletic director at LexCath. He is already acting in their best interest.

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.

 

Is one better than the other?

Is one better than the other?

 

Ultimately, probably not because it was stupid either way. And as I stated no one wants to see a young man sit on the bench and not play his sport.

 

However, it does make a difference - especially in the Lexington area in explaining what happened. It is reflective of a broader issue and a coach's frustration with such, which makes Hammond's behavior easier to understand by many around here.

#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?

 

We don’t know why he was ruled ineligible initially or why the hearing officer upheld the ineligibility other than to say that Hammond’s testimony was part of it (dare I say a big part of it), because after they read the emails, they no longer thought his word was credible.

 

We also don’t know why he transferred and probably the KHSAA doesn’t either. However, by their ruling they are saying that the reasons Hammond were giving for their transfer can’t be believed.

 

#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.

 

You can believe that this is a smoking gun if you want, but I am telling you that it is just speculation. My guess if you talk to the family they can give a handful of other factors that were key in their transferring their child to Lexington Catholic that don’t involve athletics. Bottom line, we don't know all of the reasons given why he transferred and ultimately we do no know why he transferred.

 

#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.

 

To my knowledge, the KHSAA rules do not specify the distance required to achieve a bona-fide change of residence. Only that a bona-fide change of residence must occur. Also neither the KHSAA or the Hurt family, cares if Park1221 thinks that “dog will hunt”.

 

Pretty much your entire argument is based on your opinion, thankfully there has to be real evidence of motivation. You discount their move because it doesn’t fit with your theory, but the dad supposedly having an argument with a coach or playing summer ball for the Lexington Catholic coach is elevated to carry more weight because it supports your theory. My guess, and it is just a guess, is there are probably many other factors besides these three (3). We just don’t know enough facts to argue whether the transfer was legit or not. However, as Clyde said, what we do know is:

 

-The coach was not very smart.

-The coach exercised a serious lack of maturity.

Ultimately, probably not because it was stupid either way. And as I stated no one wants to see a young man sit on the bench and not play his sport.

 

However, it does make a difference - especially in the Lexington area in explaining what happened. It is reflective of a broader issue and a coach's frustration with such, which makes Hammond's behavior easier to understand by many around here.

 

Not being from Lexington I'm not as sensitive as others might be.

 

The fact that he suggested a coach not play a kid who the state says is eligible is all I need to know.

The fact that he suggested a coach not play a kid who the state says is eligible is all I need to know.

 

Which was the only reason I jumped into this thread.

 

Found the early tone of this thread hard to believe.

Not being from Lexington I'm not as sensitive as others might be.

 

The fact that he suggested a coach not play a kid who the state says is eligible is all I need to know.

 

Without knowing the context in which is was said?

 

Without knowing the full and complete story in this matter (let's face it - no way this article contains all the relevent facts).

 

Without knowing any background of this man, his coaching, his career?

 

I don't like the coach's statement either and it doesn't speak all that well for him in this situation. IMO, not to quite enough to justify the ruination of the man's character, integrity, or career's work. No one is perfect, everyone makes mistakes - I don't see this as an unpardonable sin.

We don’t know why he was ruled ineligible initially or why the hearing officer upheld the ineligibility other than to say that Hammond’s testimony was part of it (dare I say a big part of it), because after they read the emails, they no longer thought his word was credible.

 

We also don’t know why he transferred and probably the KHSAA doesn’t either. However, by their ruling they are saying that the reasons Hammond were giving for their transfer can’t be believed.

 

 

 

You can believe that this is a smoking gun if you want, but I am telling you that it is just speculation. My guess if you talk to the family they can give a handful of other factors that were key in their transferring their child to Lexington Catholic that don’t involve athletics. Bottom line, we don't know all of the reasons given why he transferred and ultimately we do no know why he transferred.

 

 

 

To my knowledge, the KHSAA rules do not specify the distance required to achieve a bona-fide change of residence. Only that a bona-fide change of residence must occur. Also neither the KHSAA or the Hurt family, cares if Park1221 thinks that “dog will hunt”.

 

Pretty much your entire argument is based on your opinion, thankfully there has to be real evidence of motivation. You discount their move because it doesn’t fit with your theory, but the dad supposedly having an argument with a coach or playing summer ball for the Lexington Catholic coach is elevated to carry more weight because it supports your theory. My guess, and it is just a guess, is there are probably many other factors besides these three (3). We just don’t know enough facts to argue whether the transfer was legit or not. However, as Clyde said, what we do know is:

 

-The coach was not very smart.

-The coach exercised a serious lack of maturity.

 

How could Hammond's testimony been critical on whether the move was "bona fide"? Unless he was their real estate agent I doubt the Hurt family shared much information with Hammond about why they were moving. I'm truly glad the young man is allowed to play but keep those blinders on if you want to believe the family moved because all of the sudden they wanted a Catholic Education. Apparently the boy's grandfather dedicated his life's work to serving the Fayette County public school system so it seems a little odd that now the the family believes in Catholic Education. If it was for academics, why didn't he transfer in to to Sayre? Bottom line, for those close to the KBC program it was common knowledge there was a baseball problem between Hammond and the family and the kid was probably going to transfer to Lex Cath because of that and he did. My point in all of this is that the transfer rule is ridiculous because it is nearly impossible to enforce unless someone is dumb enough and honest enough to say, "Yeah, sports was a big factor in our moving and tranfering to another school." Since that kind of testimony usually never exists the KHSAA is left with looking at circumstantial evidence such as job change, change in financial circumstances, change in family size all of which may have justified the move. If those facts didn't exist(they didn't) then they have to look at whether the student was happy with his playing time, happy with his coach(he wasn't), whether the school accepting him wants him to play baseball(they do!), whether there was any athletic connection between the student and accepting school (there was, Clary coached his summer team).

What all of this illustrates is the need for the KHSAA to abolish the transfer rule and let kids transfer once without penalty.

How could Hammond's testimony been critical on whether the move was "bona fide"? Unless he was their real estate agent I doubt the Hurt family shared much information with Hammond about why they were moving. I'm truly glad the young man is allowed to play but keep those blinders on if you want to believe the family moved because all of the sudden they wanted a Catholic Education. Apparently the boy's grandfather dedicated his life's work to serving the Fayette County public school system so it seems a little odd that now the the family believes in Catholic Education. If it was for academics, why didn't he transfer in to to Sayre? Bottom line, for those close to the KBC program it was common knowledge there was a baseball problem between Hammond and the family and the kid was probably going to transfer to Lex Cath because of that and he did. My point in all of this is that the transfer rule is ridiculous because it is nearly impossible to enforce unless someone is dumb enough and honest enough to say, "Yeah, sports was a big factor in our moving and tranfering to another school." Since that kind of testimony usually never exists the KHSAA is left with looking at circumstantial evidence such as job change, change in financial circumstances, change in family size all of which may have justified the move. If those facts didn't exist (they didn't) then they have to look at whether the student was happy with his playing time, happy with his coach (he wasn't), whether the school accepting him wants him to play baseball (they do!), whether there was any athletic connection between the student and accepting school (there was, Clary coached his summer team).

What all of this illustrates is the need for the KHSAA to abolish the transfer rule and let kids transfer once without penalty.

 

Good post, but I am curious. Do you have enough personal information of the situation to make this rather definitive statement? I agree that the move looks very suspicious on the surface. No question about it. But it would also be unfair to say that there absolutely could not have been any legitimate basis to the move unless you have some firsthand knowledge. Which is guess is why I'm asking.

Some parents sure seem to have the uncanny ability to taint a kid's high school years.

Some parents sure seem to have the uncanny ability to taint a kid's high school years.

 

Not saying it applies to this family since I don't know them at all, but it really is funny (funny as in sad) how many dads delude themselves that their son is a surefire lock of a pro career and that the biggest concern facing the kid's life in his early years of high school is which MLB/NFL/NBA team is going to draft him.

Without knowing the context in which is was said?

 

Without knowing the full and complete story in this matter (let's face it - no way this article contains all the relevent facts).

 

Without knowing any background of this man, his coaching, his career?

 

I don't like the coach's statement either and it doesn't speak all that well for him in this situation. IMO, not to quite enough to justify the ruination of the man's character, integrity, or career's work. No one is perfect, everyone makes mistakes - I don't see this as an unpardonable sin.

 

 

 

I guess I'm open to context that could make it acceptable for a former coach to tell a current coach not to play a kid despite the KHSAA saying he's eligible. The only one I could come up with is "don't play him even if the KHSAA says he's eligible because he has a serious injury that could damage his baseball future."

 

Some mistakes, despite the past successes, are big enough to warrant removal. IMO contacting a coach and telling him not to play a player is one of them. Again, as I said previously, assuming these emails really exist.

How could Hammond's testimony been critical on whether the move was "bona fide"?

 

Again we do not know. However, if Hammond’s testimony was the only testimony stating that the transfer was athletically motivated, then without it there was no evidence. I have also heard that if the original school “objects” to the transfer, then the KHSAA will automatically find the athlete ineligible. That doesn’t explain (and I have no clue) why the hearing officer upheld the ruling.

 

For the record, I have no blinders on and if you asked me if I think did sports play a role in the kid’s transfer I would say “definitely I believe it”. However, me believing the kid transferred due to sports and being able to say with any certainty that is the case are different.

Some parents sure seem to have the uncanny ability to taint a kid's high school years.

 

And some parents realize that a high school sports career are some of the best days of a kids life and want the best for them.

I guess I'm open to context that could make it acceptable for a former coach to tell a current coach not to play a kid despite the KHSAA saying he's eligible. The only one I could come up with is "don't play him even if the KHSAA says he's eligible because he has a serious injury that could damage his baseball future."

 

Some mistakes, despite the past successes, are big enough to warrant removal. IMO contacting a coach and telling him not to play a player is one of them. Again, as I said previously, assuming these emails really exist.

 

Certainly stretching things here, especially as it relates to this situation, but: "This kid is recovering from a serious kidney operation and is going to try to play, but he's just not ready. It might be best if you don't play him." Yes, a stretch. A big stretch. But the point is that there IS other possibilities.

 

But even in your scenario, which no doubt is likely, while it's wrong and a serious mistake by the coach, I don't see it as a termination-worthy mistake. This was obviously an emotional, possibly heated, frustrating situation for all parties. The exact type of situation that good, honorable people can make an error of judgement. If it's one-time, isolated occurrence in an otherwise impeccable career, no way should the death card have been dealt.