|
Post by McScruff on Feb 24, 2006 11:07:00 GMT -6
he/she must have edited it. There's a modify button. Just like I went back and changed care to car...
|
|
|
Post by L4S on Feb 24, 2006 11:23:35 GMT -6
he/she must have edited it. There's a modify button. Just like I went back and changed care to car... then i apologize...carry on
|
|
|
Post by Bish on Feb 24, 2006 11:50:31 GMT -6
Bish: A) I don't think it has been clearly proven that a violation was, in fact, broken. B) I don't think the rules say anything about non-certified coaches training the team, only about having a presence on the sideline during games. A) Yeah I know that That's a good point. Didn't think bout that.
|
|
|
Post by stuckonsideline on Feb 24, 2006 12:24:26 GMT -6
From what has been written about the rules, it sounds like LSHAA's intent was they really do want to know who is on the sideline and involved in the games. Then they said, we really mean this, so beaking this rule is a forfeit. Ignore it at your peril.
The issues about penalizing players are tough ones, but our sue-happy culture almost mandates that the LSHAA have rules about the personnel responsible over almost anything else.
Making the penalty severe is how you make sure people follow the rules you REALLY want followed, otherwise, they just blow them off.
.
says in the rules that a team will forfeit the games when unapproved personnel are involved, then they
|
|
|
Post by Bish on Feb 24, 2006 12:29:26 GMT -6
From what has been written about the rules, it sounds like LSHAA's intent was they really do want to know who is on the sideline and involved in the games. Then they said, we really mean this, so beaking this rule is a forfeit. Ignore it at your peril. The thing is, from what it looks like, the rule wasn't ignored. The coach believed in good faith that he was following the elligibility rules, since he is a full time student. The rule about the full time student seems to be vague, that is the problem.
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Feb 24, 2006 12:35:43 GMT -6
[glow=red,2,300]The thing is, from what it looks like, the rule wasn't ignored. The coach believed in good faith that he was following the elligibility rules, since he is a full time student[/glow]
I'm sirtting here believing, in good faith, that I'm 6'2", 225 pounds, and look like a model...but my believing this doesn't make it happen. ignorance of the law is no excuse. 1:00 PM is almost here, I guess we'll know soon enough...
|
|
|
Post by Pitchstalker on Feb 24, 2006 12:37:56 GMT -6
I'm guessing we won't know at 1pm...it is my understanding that this is when the "conference call" involving the committee members takes place...so it'll probably be a few hours later.
correct me if I'm wrong...
|
|
|
Post by Bish on Feb 24, 2006 12:39:06 GMT -6
Good faith is relevant in relevant circumstances. In your circumstance, if you have no access to a mirror or other people's opinions, then your good faith means nothing. THAT is ignorance. They weren't ignorant of the rule. They believed they were following it, and they have evidence from the rules to back that up. That's as far from ignorant that you can be.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Feb 24, 2006 12:41:55 GMT -6
I don't know what the final result of the appeal will be,but the rule is not vague. " A full time college or university student enrolled in and attending a four year school in an education,physical education ( Kinesiology ),sports administration or sports management curriculum shall be allowed to serve as an assistant coach at any level in any sport ". This is not a vague statement, the coach is enrolled in general studies.
|
|
|
Post by McScruff on Feb 24, 2006 12:49:55 GMT -6
General Studies is his major. I think you are ignorant to the difference between the word curriculum and major.
|
|
|
Post by Bish on Feb 24, 2006 12:53:23 GMT -6
General Studies is his major. I think you are ignorant to the difference between the word curriculum and major. Ohhhhh you got served!
|
|
|
Post by ooplease on Feb 24, 2006 12:56:27 GMT -6
If Lafayette remains DQ then, I think Fontainebleau should go directly to the FINALS. Jesuit lost and hasn't earned a spot into the SEMIS. Let's give Rummel a second chance too. OR wait what about Catholic. They lost to Lafayette too.
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Feb 24, 2006 12:58:10 GMT -6
I will assume, based on your niavete, that you have never dealt with LHSAA on matters regarding rule interpretation.
For a history lesson, go look at Belaire high school and the basketball playoffs last year. They had good faith when they moved a game because of severe weather. However, the rules state the game would be completed by X day, and they went one day passed. Both teams were eliminated from the playoffs.
There are many other instances I can think of, but it is obvious you are looking with blinders on and not open to opinions of others. You want LHS in, so your arguements all sway this way. I don't care who is in...
|
|
|
Post by ithappens on Feb 24, 2006 13:00:45 GMT -6
Details as soon as the verdict has been established would be appreciated.
Idk how LHS will respond to this, but i hope the kids don't get the raw end, although at this point it seems they will regardless.
|
|
|
Post by McScruff on Feb 24, 2006 13:02:47 GMT -6
Happyjack, I am curious about your position on Jesuit receiving the forfeit rather than Fountainebleau.
|
|
|
Post by ShreveDad on Feb 24, 2006 13:03:27 GMT -6
Jesuit has already been told they will play Fontainebleau. If the appeal is denied I wouldn't expect that decision to change.
|
|
|
Post by windman on Feb 24, 2006 13:04:29 GMT -6
The only fair way to handle this if Lafayette is disq. is to give Fontainebleau a BYE in the semis and an automatic spot in the finals. Jesuit lost, not due to the Laf coaching problems, but because they got beat on the field by a better team. They did not win the game and Jesuit should in no way be allowed back into the tourney due to this controversy.
What about the 2 other teams that lost to Lafy if these coaches were involved in those? Henry's way of handling this is his way and I am sure there is no rule in the handbook that tells how to definitely handle this.
How can 1 man ruin the lives of so many people?
|
|
|
Post by McScruff on Feb 24, 2006 13:07:40 GMT -6
It just occurred to me...the only way that the ruling makes sense to me is if Jesuit did indeed press for the disqualification. How else can you explain the can of worms that restoring Jesuit to the playoffs causes?
|
|
|
Post by McScruff on Feb 24, 2006 13:09:11 GMT -6
"ruin the lives"? Come on, windman...I think that is going too far.
|
|
|
Post by Bish on Feb 24, 2006 13:10:37 GMT -6
I will assume, based on your niavete, that you have never dealt with LHSAA on matters regarding rule interpretation. For a history lesson, go look at Belaire high school and the basketball playoffs last year. They had good faith when they moved a game because of severe weather. However, the rules state the game would be completed by X day, and they went one day passed. Both teams were eliminated from the playoffs. There are many other instances I can think of, but it is obvious you are looking with blinders on and not open to opinions of others. You want LHS in, so your arguements all sway this way. I don't care who is in... I could care less about Lafayette. I'm not even a fan. The reason why my arguments sway this way is because that is my stance. You think everybody that posts on here saying Lafayette should be able to play because they aren't open minded? Maybe they swing that way because they think it's the right thing to do. I'm a very open minded person. You just haven't told me anything relevant. The instance you gave was a breaking of the rule. There was no misinterpretation, and no gray area. It was plain as day - they missed the mark. This is significantly different. They followed the rules and are being penalized.
|
|