In theory they could say any kid who plays sports is doing it for athletic reasons.

 

No, according to what Leatherneck posted in another thread and please correct me if I'm wrong is that the athletic reasons is only factored in if there is direct evidence of athletic intent presented to the KHSAA. Which in this case seems to be in the form of the statement from the previous athletic department and a text message sent from the student athlete in question. So my understanding is that if they KHSAA ruled is change of residence was bona fide or met another requirement to receive the waiver he would be eligable in the absence of the statement from Danville and the presentation of the text message of evidence. These items are evidence of athletic intent with the transfer and therefore because athletics is a factor and proof exists he cannot be granted a waiver no matter how many circumstances or exemptions he meets.

To summarize if no one complained or presented the text as evidence athletic intent would not even be considered the only thing that would have been considered was the change in residence/custody issue. I think that is right. :confused:

No, according to what Leatherneck posted in another thread and please correct me if I'm wrong is that the athletic reasons is only factored in if there is direct evidence of athletic intent presented to the KHSAA. Which in this case seems to be in the form of the statement from the previous athletic department and a text message sent from the student athlete in question. So my understanding is that if they KHSAA ruled is change of residence was bona fide or met another requirement to receive the waiver he would be eligable in the absence of the statement from Danville and the presentation of the text message of evidence. These items are evidence of athletic intent with the transfer and therefore because athletics is a factor and proof exists he cannot be granted a waiver no matter how many circumstances or exemptions he meets.

To summarize if no one complained or presented the text as evidence athletic intent would not even be considered the only thing that would have been considered was the change in residence/custody issue. I think that is right. :confused:

 

 

Speaking generally, if there is evidence that the transfer was motivated in whole or in part by athletic intent, and the KHSAA finds and concludes based on that evidence there was athletic intent, then it doesn't matter if there was a bona fide change of residence or not and it doesn't matter if a student athlete satisfies any of the other exceptions set forth in By Law 6.

 

As Toots pointed out in post 22 of this thread, Section 3 of By Law 6 is quite clear on that point.

In regards to Harp signing a statement, Is he supposed to lie???? I mean when an investigation occurs it is investigated and you make a statement, was he supposed to lie? Come on people wake up.

Another thing I was thinking, is, Does Boyle County want all this distraction? I know Boyle officials said they would not comment on its students and I think that is really smart on their part. But, would they want this looming over their program? What part will they play in the appeal? Highlands sure got in a mess a few years back. I'm sure Boyle officials will have their ducks in a row dealing with this situation. I gained great respect for the Boyle football program last year with their work ethic and dedication to winning their championship.:thumb:

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Bobby Leffew play under an injunction after being ruled ineligible by the KHSAA his 5th year of HS? I know it was a totally different situation, but if that were the case "eligibility controversy" would not exactly be new ground for the Rebels.

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!!!

 

I don't think you know what you are talking about here.

 

He can't just move back and undo the transfer. He is now enrolled at Boyle County and moving back to Danville would be a NEW transfer. He can't just call no-takes and go right back as if he never transfered at all. He is either enrolled at Boyle Co or not, there is no in between, that's like saying someone is a little bit pregnant.

 

Now, if he transfers from Boyle Co to Danville, it would be a NEW transfer and I think as a new transfer he would have to apply for a waiver and meet the exceptions in Bylaw 6 in order to now be eligible at Danville.

 

Unfortunately for the student, IMO Section 3 of that Bylaw would negate the waiver because no waiver is granted if the student transfers because he "left the school under penalty which would have resulted in his ineligibility at the sending school". Not to mention it would be pretty hard to argue that this transfer back to Danville is not athletically motiviated.

 

It is unfortunate for the kid, but it looks to me like he will either be eligible at Boyle Co or nowhere. That is the chance you take when you make a hasty move without understanding the transfer rules fully. And if he ends up missing is senior year, the blame is not on the KHSAA.

I don't think you know what you are talking about here.

 

He can't just move back and undo the transfer. He is now enrolled at Boyle County and moving back to Danville would be a NEW transfer. He can't just call no-takes and go right back as if he never transfered at all. He is either enrolled at Boyle Co or not, there is no in between, that's like saying someone is a little bit pregnant.

 

Now, if he transfers from Boyle Co to Danville, it would be a NEW transfer and I think as a new transfer he would have to apply for a waiver and meet the exceptions in Bylaw 6 in order to now be eligible at Danville.

 

Unfortunately for the student, IMO Section 3 of that Bylaw would negate the waiver because no waiver is granted if the student transfers because he "left the school under penalty which would have resulted in his ineligibility at the sending school". Not to mention it would be pretty hard to argue that this transfer back to Danville is not athletically motiviated.

 

It is unfortunate for the kid, but it looks to me like he will either be eligible at Boyle Co or nowhere. That is the chance you take when you make a hasty move without understanding the transfer rules fully. And if he ends up missing is senior year, the blame is not on the KHSAA.

 

This has all the pingings of an adult-caused problem put a kid in very, very bad spot. The parents certainly knew, coaches at each school had to know what was in the works, other adults at each of the schools or school system had to know to process paperwork. Maybe adults did try to keep this from becoming this sort of drama and acted with some level of fiduciary responsibility. If they did not, as the poster above indicates, they can not blame KHSAA now.

 

I hope there is some recourse that allows him to play should it be that adults acted improperly or did not act in a fiduciary manner.

I don't think you know what you are talking about here.

 

He can't just move back and undo the transfer. He is now enrolled at Boyle County and moving back to Danville would be a NEW transfer. He can't just call no-takes and go right back as if he never transfered at all. He is either enrolled at Boyle Co or not, there is no in between, that's like saying someone is a little bit pregnant.

 

Now, if he transfers from Boyle Co to Danville, it would be a NEW transfer and I think as a new transfer he would have to apply for a waiver and meet the exceptions in Bylaw 6 in order to now be eligible at Danville.

 

Unfortunately for the student, IMO Section 3 of that Bylaw would negate the waiver because no waiver is granted if the student transfers because he "left the school under penalty which would have resulted in his ineligibility at the sending school". Not to mention it would be pretty hard to argue that this transfer back to Danville is not athletically motiviated.

 

It is unfortunate for the kid, but it looks to me like he will either be eligible at Boyle Co or nowhere. That is the chance you take when you make a hasty move without understanding the transfer rules fully. And if he ends up missing is senior year, the blame is not on the KHSAA.

 

He can just get an injunction..................

I wonder if he wanted to move schools because Danville struggled and Boyle Co. won state? That's why I would transfer. I agree with the KHSAA on this one.

We could end all of these arguments by simply allowing all kids to make 1 unjustified transfer during their high school career. Adults are allowed to change jobs freely. Why shouldn't kids be allowed to do the same? IMO, forcing kids to stay at schools that just aren't working out for them is bad for the kids, the schools and the communities. They're not adults. They shouldn't be penalized for one bad decision or situation out of their control (coaching changes, etc).

 

Also IMO, the effect of this rule change would generally be minimal. Sure every once in a while a team somewhere might get overly stacked because of it, but most kids hate disruption & wouldn't take advantage of it.

We could end all of these arguments by simply allowing all kids to make 1 unjustified transfer during their high school career. Adults are allowed to change jobs freely. Why shouldn't kids be allowed to do the same? IMO, forcing kids to stay at schools that just aren't working out for them is bad for the kids, the schools and the communities. They're not adults. They shouldn't be penalized for one bad decision or situation out of their control (coaching changes, etc).

 

Also IMO, the effect of this rule change would generally be minimal. Sure every once in a while a team somewhere might get overly stacked because of it, but most kids hate disruption & wouldn't take advantage of it.

 

I would agree 100%

We could end all of these arguments by simply allowing all kids to make 1 unjustified transfer during their high school career. Adults are allowed to change jobs freely. Why shouldn't kids be allowed to do the same? IMO, forcing kids to stay at schools that just aren't working out for them is bad for the kids, the schools and the communities. They're not adults. They shouldn't be penalized for one bad decision or situation out of their control (coaching changes, etc).

 

Also IMO, the effect of this rule change would generally be minimal. Sure every once in a while a team somewhere might get overly stacked because of it, but most kids hate disruption & wouldn't take advantage of it.

 

The integrity of High School sports would be gone, whether you agree with the rules or not in kentucky the playing field is not too awful slanted. Small schools or up and coming programs would simply die, and money would be thrown around, recruiting and shady dealing would become prevalent and then the KHSAA would be bogged down with corruption complaints and rules violations. No way this could ever happen.

We could end all of these arguments by simply allowing all kids to make 1 unjustified transfer during their high school career. Adults are allowed to change jobs freely. Why shouldn't kids be allowed to do the same? IMO, forcing kids to stay at schools that just aren't working out for them is bad for the kids, the schools and the communities. They're not adults. They shouldn't be penalized for one bad decision or situation out of their control (coaching changes, etc).

 

Also IMO, the effect of this rule change would generally be minimal. Sure every once in a while a team somewhere might get overly stacked because of it, but most kids hate disruption & wouldn't take advantage of it.

 

I agree with you to a point, but there has to be some accounting to prevent recruiting, which is what the Bylaw is designed to prevent.

 

This idea has floated around before, and may be discussion for a thread of its own. There are many who think that a kid should be eligible wherever he decides to attend school, no matter if he transfers every year.

 

The idea is that we punish the wrong parties when find problems.

 

The flip side to the above idea is when we find recruiting violations then we need to heavily punish the coaches and schools instead of the student athletes. If a coach/school, etc. is caught recruiting, then the KHSAA needs to drop the hammer on that coach and school with some serious penalties, strong enough to discourage the practice. I'm talking about coaching bans for entire season(s) or a lifetime and financial penalties on the schools.

Speaking generally, if there is evidence that the transfer was motivated in whole or in part by athletic intent, and the KHSAA finds and concludes based on that evidence there was athletic intent, then it doesn't matter if there was a bona fide change of residence or not and it doesn't matter if a student athlete satisfies any of the other exceptions set forth in By Law 6.

 

As Toots pointed out in post 22 of this thread, Section 3 of By Law 6 is quite clear on that point.

 

A text from a teen holds that much water? Or is it more because of the Danville people pressing the issue?

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.

 

Do you realize how many kids break this rule every year?

 

Do you you not find it hypocritical to accept transfers for athletic purposes, but fight this one so strongly because it rubs you the wrong way?:confused:

Way to stand up for what is right coach Harp.