I think it's pretty crappy that the newspaper named the student on the other end of the text message. I don't want to offend anyone or anything, but why use that kid's name?

I think it's pretty crappy that the newspaper named the student on the other end of the text message. I don't want to offend anyone or anything, but why use that kid's name?

 

Agreed:thumb: I was surprised it named the other student.

I find it quite interesting that in the whole public/private debate there was such a clamor of enforcement of rules and even adding more rules THAT WOULD TAKE OPPORTUNITIES TO PLAY SPORTS AWAY FROM KIDS. Then when the KHSAA has the "audacity" to enforce those rules many people get up in arms because the KHSAA is hurting the kid. I don't know the whole story and I'll bet that no one who has posted here does either, but from what I read it's a no brainer that the kid attempted to change residences so he could go to school to play for a better football team (in his opinion). Sounds to me like the KHSAA got this one right and if there's any blame to be laid for "hurting the kid" it should go right at the feet of his parents who allowed this.

Here is a link to Bylaw 6:

 

http://www.khsaa.org/handbook/bylaws/bylaw6.pdf

 

Bottom line, if it is determined the move was for athletic purposes, it trumps all other exceptions and eligibility is denied. It sounds to me like that is what the decision is here.

 

Because of a text message sent by a kid though? I don't think they should have to meet criteria then send it off for a second opinion.

If I were his previous coach or A.D., there is no way I could do this to the kid. Danville, like all high profile schools, has benefited from a transfer at some point in time that was athletically motivated.:confused:

 

Why? The kid is willingly attempting to break a state rule. This would hurt one program and benefit another. The kid and his parents made this decision.

I think it's pretty crappy that the newspaper named the student on the other end of the text message. I don't want to offend anyone or anything, but why use that kid's name?

 

I think so they could say that they got all of their information from the open files. Their defense will be that anyone who looks at files will find out anyways. It's open to the public. I am more shocked that Sam Harp would name the kid involved in the text messageing than from a newspaper reporting what they found out in public records.

I don't think there is any chance he will return to Danville to play football, maybe at this point the rules wouldn't allow that either. I don't think Coach Harp's motivation to sign a statement has anything to do with forcing him to come back to Danville. Not sure, I don't think we have all the information to make too many judgements. In addition sometimes newspapers can report things inaccurately.:idunno:

 

He is definitely eligible to return to Danville and play. If he is not eligible at Boyle Co. then the KHSAA is saying he is eligible at Danville. They (the KHSAA) can't deny him from playing at Danville. Sam Harp can though!!!

Purplepride, i agree it was in the open records but a good journalist still did not need to publish the kids name that had the text. If adults wanted to know the name we should have needed to look it up ourselves and not read it in our local paper. Not sure were I stand on this one. He would obviously help our team but I do not like the smell of this.One more point, Did Sam Harp have to give the kids name that had the text to the K.H.S.A.A for evidence? Not trying to take up for him but he probably had to.

Purplepride, i agree it was in the open records but a good journalist still did not need to publish the kids name that had the text. If adults wanted to know the name we should have needed to look it up ourselves and not read it in our local paper. Not sure were I stand on this one. He would obviously help our team but I do not like the smell of this.One more point, Did Sam Harp have to give the kids name that had the text to the K.H.S.A.A for evidence? Not trying to take up for him but he probably had to.

 

He had to of given up the name if he signed the statement. I would think.

 

I wondered how this would play out since day 1.

 

I agree he didn't have to say his name and if it were me, I might have left it out, I might not have. I really can't answer that question but I completely understand Hal's reasoning. When it comes down to it, Hal's job is to write stories so the newspaper will sell papaers and he was doing his job, IMO. I'd say they sold a lot of copies today.

I agree Purplepride, everyone is talking about it today,and talking about the article. I think this could play out all the way to the summer before we have closure.

That wouldn't surprise me at all. Dakotah Euton and Chad Jackson were both initially ruled ineligible when they transferred.

Maybe some of the emotion will go away with some time and everything out in the open now.The bottom line is he will play somewhere next season and I just hope the best for everyone involved. God Bless!

He had to of given up the name if he signed the statement. I would think.

 

I wondered how this would play out since day 1.

 

I agree he didn't have to say his name and if it were me, I might have left it out, I might not have. I really can't answer that question but I completely understand Hal's reasoning. When it comes down to it, Hal's job is to write stories so the newspaper will sell papaers and he was doing his job, IMO. I'd say they sold a lot of copies today.

 

He could have done the same thing and sold the same amount of papers if the name of this 16 or 17 year old kid was not put in the article. The same story would have been reported.

He could have done the same thing and sold the same amount of papers if the name of this 16 or 17 year old kid was not put in the article. The same story would have been reported.

 

We'll agree to disagree. Living here in Danville I am almost certain that they sold extra papers today simply because of the name put in the paper.

How does anyone see this as meeting some criteria of bylaw 6? No divorce...No legal change of address by his guardian...only a possible change of guardianship..which should have happened first.