Please keep in mind that the KHSAA rules permit a player to appeal their decision to the judicial system and get an injunction. For the life of me I don't understand folks who think that schools/players need to comply with the KHSAA rules but want to deny the ability to go to court when the rules permit it. Perhaps I'm a slave to my legal training, but that's illogical. I understand that you were just expressing your opinion, but since the KHSAA is a state agency, KRS Chapter 13B guarantees the right to appeal the KHSAA's final decision to the judicial system.

I didn't know that, but of course our legal system and its design allows for loop holes. The KHSSA rules and regs were put into place for a reason to keep order and control, so every individual and team can't do what ever they want. I can see a court over riding a KHSAA decision if its controversial or not clear cut, but from what I have seen this is not the case in this situation. Maybe the court will uphold the KHSAA decision, I guess we will know sometime in the near future. If the rules permit an appeal then I'm all for it, but like I said some laws and regulations can be twisted and the true purposes not be met. I'm sure my mention of Highlands got your attention a little, but I was just using it as an example.

There is nothing on the transfer form that allows for a "protest" to the best of my recollection (I don't have the form in front of me). It's a factual form. If a school wanted to protest, they could contact the KHSAA, outside the form, and express their opinion that a waiver of ineligibility should not be granted and state their reasons.

 

That is what I thought you said before.

 

I think there is a myth repeated on the board (heck I probably contributed) that on the transfer form there is a box that says, "check here is you have any issues with the transfer", which doesn't seem to be the case.

LN: I have not gone back and looked, but I thought you told me that the "sending" schools is not given the opportunity to "protest" the transfer.

 

Does the sending school have this power or not?

 

On the transfer form, the sending school answers factual questions. There is no space or block to indicate the sending school "protests" the possible eligibility of the transferrring student. The sending school answers the questions and submits the form. It's then up to the KHSAA to look into the transfer.

 

And while the form does not give the sending school the opportunity to "protest", there is nothing stopping the sending school from contacting the KHSAA and expressing its opinion as to why the transferring student should not be eligible. One can argue that a member school has an obligation to provide info in its knowledge to see that the rules of the KHSAA are enforced. The mere fact that a sending school "protests" doesn't mean the kid will be ineligible, much like if a sending school contacts the KHSAA and says they think the kid should be eligible at the receiving school doesn't mean the kid will be eligible. Frankly, what the sending school thinks is somewhat irrelevant to the final decision. The determination is based on the facts gathered by the KHSAA and the application of them to the by laws. Of course if a sending school provides facts to the KHSAA indicating that the kid should not be eligible and the KHSAA verifies the info provided by the sending school, the kid will not be eligible.

 

Again, and for the record, I have zero clue or idea what ,if any, info was provided by Danville to the KHSAA. I only know what I've read on here or in the Ad/Mes.

 

I think this issue came up previously in the context of some people proposing that if the sending school has no problem with a kid being eligible, he/she should automatically be eligible. I've heard this proposal many times over the years. I have two problems with the concept:

 

1. you will have very dramatically different results based on the "mentality" of the sending school and on the talent level of the transferrring student. Under the same or very similar facts surrounding transfers, one less talented kid could be okay to play with the sending school, whereas a very talented kid might not be eligible. As an attorney, I think that is wrong as there is no precedental value of the decisions.

 

2. something the proponents of this concept fail to appropriately value is, if the sending school indicates that the transferring kid should not be eligible, the sending school and the person signing the form are often going to find themselves on the wrong end of a lawsuit by the kid and his/her parents. A neighboring state used to have that concept in place. I was told that an AD signed off on a kid being eligible, even when he didn't think she should be, because the AD didn't want to get himself and his school sued. Supposedly that happened often particularly when the transferring kid either was not an impact player or was transferring to a school that wasn't a rival or competitor of the sending school. That's not a good way to have consistent application of the rules in my opinion.

Edited April 30, 201016 yr by leatherneck

I didn't know that, but of course our legal system and its design allows for loop holes. The KHSSA rules and regs were put into place for a reason to keep order and control, so every individual and team can't do what ever they want. I can see a court over riding a KHSAA decision if its controversial or not clear cut, but from what I have seen this is not the case in this situation. Maybe the court will uphold the KHSAA decision, I guess we will know sometime in the near future. If the rules permit an appeal then I'm all for it, but like I said some laws and regulations can be twisted and the true purposes not be met. I'm sure my mention of Highlands got your attention a little, but I was just using it as an example.

 

Nah, it truly wasn't the Highlands mention that got my attention. I'm just very familiar with the rules, due in part with my knowledge of the Mitchell case and the fact I'm an attorney, that "compels" me to want to clarify the issue.

 

The court standard for overrruling the KHSAA (or any other state administrative agency) is based on whether the court finds the agency's final decision to be arbitrary or capricious. Some folks have long argued that some local courts will be "homers" and overturn the KHSAA without good cause. Even if true, that's an "inefficiency" of our judicial system found in all types of legal matters that we just have to accept. If a person doesn't think one of my Ohio based corporate clients can be homered by a California judge, they would be wrong. It happens. I just have to appeal the decision to a higher level court that hopefully will correctly apply the law and my client has to deal with the incorrect lower level court's decision in the meantime. I can't tell my court to ignore the lower level decision because I think my client got homered. I can't tell my client that decisions of our judicial system are to be ignored because some judges may issue "homer" decisions. It stinks no doubt, but at the end of the day, respect and compliance with our Constitution and the judiciary is more important than the outcome of any high school athletic event. Unfortunately, some people (particularly adults) get so wrapped up in athletics, they lose sight of the big picture and want to deny people their statutory rights in the name of athletics.

Nah, it truly wasn't the Highlands mention that got my attention. I'm just very familiar with the rules, due in part with my knowledge of the Mitchell case and the fact I'm an attorney, that "compels" me to want to clarify the issue.

 

The court standard for overrruling the KHSAA (or any other state administrative agency) is based on whether the court finds the agency's final decision to be arbitrary or capricious. Some folks have long argued that some local courts will be "homers" and overturn the KHSAA without good cause. Even if true, that's an "inefficiency" of our judicial system found in all types of legal matters that we just have to accept. If a person doesn't think one of my Ohio based corporate clients can be homered by a California judge, they would be wrong. It happens. I just have to appeal the decision to a higher level court that hopefully will correctly apply the law and my client has to deal with the incorrect lower level court's decision in the meantime. I can't tell my court to ignore the lower level decision because I think my client got homered. I can't tell my client that decisions of our judicial system are to be ignored because some judges may issue "homer" decisions. It stinks no doubt, but at the end of the day, respect and compliance with our Constitution and the judiciary is more important than the outcome of any high school athletic event. Unfortunately, some people (particularly adults) get so wrapped up in athletics, they lose sight of the big picture and want to deny people their statutory rights in the name of athletics.

 

What ever the law says I'm all for it. Athletics has nothing to do with my opinion about how lawyers can get around things and what is right or wrong, I see cases everyday on local and on the national level, where its very plain to see that people are guilty but get off on technical issues or find loop holes. I agree injustice in High School Athletics is kind of small beans, but you have to start somewhere. I hope the law is applied correctly in this situation. Also, I am a Christian and true justice will be served one day.

What ever the law says I'm all for it. Athletics has nothing to do with my opinion about how lawyers can get around things and what is right or wrong, I see cases everyday on local and on the national level, where its very plain to see that people are guilty but get off on technical issues or find loop holes. I agree injustice in High School Athletics is kind of small beans, but you have to start somewhere. I hope the law is applied correctly in this situation. Also, I am a Christian and true justice will be served one day.

 

Oh I hear what you are saying and agree with it. However, the right to appeal the KHSAA's decision to the judiciary is not a loophole. It's a statutory right to the judiciary, the same right you would receive for example if you filed for unemployment benefits and were improperly denied by the Ky Office of Employment and Training.

 

One can argue that the right to play high school athletics is no where near as important as the right to receive unemployment benefits, and thus players/parents shouldn't have the right to appeal the KHSAA's decision to court. And that might be a popular opinion. Unfortunately, Chapter 13B doesn't read that way. Heck, one could likewise effectively argue that athletics is a very important part of the educational process, as case studies show time after time again that athletes generally have higher GPAs, are better students and have fewer discipline problems than non-athletes. Thus the ability to participate in athletics is crucially important and players/parents should have the ability to appeal the KHSAA's decisions to the courts. That's above my pay grade and I'll leave it with the KHSAA's rules provide for appeals to the court system so players/parents are living within the rules when they do so.

Oh I hear what you are saying and agree with it. However, the right to appeal the KHSAA's decision to the judiciary is not a loophole. It's a statutory right to the judiciary, the same right you would receive for example if you filed for unemployment benefits and were improperly denied by the Ky Office of Employment and Training.

 

One can argue that the right to play high school athletics is no where near as important as the right to receive unemployment benefits, and thus players/parents shouldn't have the right to appeal the KHSAA's decision to court. And that might be a popular opinion. Unfortunately, Chapter 13B doesn't read that way. Heck, one could likewise effectively argue that athletics is a very important part of the educational process, as case studies show time after time again that athletes generally have higher GPAs, are better students and have fewer discipline problems than non-athletes. Thus the ability to participate in athletics is crucially important and players/parents should have the ability to appeal the KHSAA's decisions to the courts. That's above my pay grade and I'll leave it with the KHSAA's rules provide for appeals to the court system so players/parents are living within the rules when they do so.

Like I said before, I didn't know they could appeal. I'm sure there are a lot of the things I don't know, an appeal to a higher authority has to be in place. I guess what I'm saying is I hope things are ruled on justly and fair. But this isn't a perfect world and the people involved will just have to work through the process. I really didn't mean that the appeal was a loop hole, but once it gets into court there seems to be more wiggle room. But "It is what it is" to borrow a popular catch phrase.

If ruled ineligible. Will he play for Danville. I would rather play then sit out, no matter what.

If ruled ineligible. Will he play for Danville. I would rather play then sit out, no matter what.

 

I don't think so. I can't speak for Will but I don't think he would go back and play for Danville anyways. He could move to Lincoln County or Garrard County and play for them apparently but I have yet to have that one explained to me. :idunno:

I don't think so. I can't speak for Will but I don't think he would go back and play for Danville anyways. He could move to Lincoln County or Garrard County and play for them apparently but I have yet to have that one explained to me. :idunno:

 

How in the world can that happen?:confused:

I don't think so. I can't speak for Will but I don't think he would go back and play for Danville anyways. He could move to Lincoln County or Garrard County and play for them apparently but I have yet to have that one explained to me. :idunno:

 

Unfortunately, I don't think that will help Dunn out either. If he moves to another district now, it will look like he moved in order to play sports and that is not allowed. Unless the courts rule differently, I believe Dunn is only eligible to play at Danville.

If he moved to Lincoln Co then he would be eligible by the bylaw.

 

I was referring to this post. I knew I saw something saying he could move to Lincoln or Garrard County and be eligible but no one could explain to me why.

I was referring to this post. I knew I saw something saying he could move to Lincoln or Garrard County and be eligible but no one could explain to me why.

 

Let me try and explain. I am sure I will be promptly corrected if I am wrong. Here are the applicable parts of the bylaw:

 

Bylaw 6. Transfer Rule - Domestic Students

Sec. 1) Domestic Student Transfer

Any student who has been enrolled in grades nine (9) through

twelve (12) and has participated in any varsity contest in any sport

at any school following enrollment in grade nine (9) and who then

transfers schools shall be ineligible for interscholastic athletics at

any level in any sport for one year from the date of enrollment in

the new school.

The Commissioner has discretion (but is not required) to waive

the period of ineligibility set forth above if one or more of the

following exceptions in Section 2 has been met. Determinations

of whether a student shall be granted a waiver pursuant to this

rule shall be based on the circumstances existing as of the date of

enrollment at the new school.

Sec. 2) Discretionary Exceptions for Waiver

a) BONA FIDE CHANGE IN RESIDENCE - The period of ineligibility

may be waived if there has been a bonafide change in residence

by the parents and student that precedes a student’s change of

schools.

For purposes of this bylaw, a bonafide change of residence

means the moving of the permanent residence of the entire

family of the student and the student’s parents from one school

district or defined school attendance area into another school

district or defined school attendance area prior to a change in

enrollment of the student.

 

Sec. 3) Specific Restrictions Resulting in Denial of Waiver

Satisfying of one of the exceptions (a through i) shall not be

considered valid and a waiver of the period of ineligibility shall

not be granted:

 

c) If the change in schools is motivated in whole or part by a desire

to participate in athletics at the new school;

d) If the satisfying of one of the exceptions is used or manipulated

for the purpose of gaining athletic eligibility;

 

If I read this right with particular attention to the highlighted parts, Dunn could move to Lincoln County to satisfy the bonafide change of residence exception and still be denied eligibility if the KHSAA determines he moved because of his desire to participate in athletics. At this point, any move he makes will be closely scrutinized with the obvious assumption being he moved to play athletics. That is it in a nutshell. That is why I believe he can only play at Danville, barring a court order or injunction.

Per KHSAA rule this kid is up a creek without a paddle! I would like to know what the reason for change of address was......at least the Dunn's story. For that address to officialy change dad whould have to be the custodial parent and or have joint to 50% custody. Am I correct on this??

Decisions have consequences. Rules are known or should be known.

 

I think that if we truly believe what wwe espouse about the student coming before the athlete, it should not matter where a kid plays sports. Some will take advantage of the situation, but by and large, most families just go to school where the residency dictates.