Hayfield Football Coach Fired

[Anonymous]

Seeing a report that FCPS has filed a request for an injunction to boot Robinson out of the playoffs and restore Hayfield to playoff contention.

What a slimeball Michelle Reid is. I hope Robinson administration goes after her hard. She is total scum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seeing a report that FCPS has filed a request for an injunction to boot Robinson out of the playoffs and restore Hayfield to playoff contention.

What a slimeball Michelle Reid is. I hope Robinson administration goes after her hard. She is total scum.

Do you have a credible source for this before everyone leaps to conclusions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seeing a report that FCPS has filed a request for an injunction to boot Robinson out of the playoffs and restore Hayfield to playoff contention.

What a slimeball Michelle Reid is. I hope Robinson administration goes after her hard. She is total scum.

Do you have a credible source for this before everyone leaps to conclusions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Riddle me this Mr we/I are so ignorant. If you leave ur current job as a dept head, and people under you leave with you, was that not their choice or is it your fault that you moved n they chose to follow. Do you say stay at your old position and deal with it because I care so much for where I’m leaving. Ignorance is the words you spew. Ignorance is me saying something along the lines of I bet you like the color RED you

It’s absolutely your fault if they move and you had a non-compete. People get sued all the time over recruiting employees. The ones that do it make darn sure they are squeaky clean.

Similarly, VHSL rule 27-9 says no proselytizing. That means
(1) Being asked to move by a member of the school faculty.
(2) Being asked to move by a booster organization or a member of such an organization.
(3) Being given tuition, free text books, allowance for transportation or consideration not afforded other students, athletic or nonathletic.
(4) Any other evidence that a transfer or enrollment was made because of athletic ability.

There are multiple parents that have flat out confessed to #4 on Facebook or the YouTube interview. Those parents say they moved their kid because their kid refused to play for anyone other than Overton because they’ve been with him since the son was 8 years old. That’s a #4 violation. You don’t need text messages, pictures of shuttle vans or anything else. The parents confessed to a #4 violation.

Is it? Not saying the coach and other adults didn’t do anything wrong, but let’s address what you concluded - there's a #4 violation when a transfer is made “because of athletic ability.” Following someone because of loyalty, does not have anything to do with athletic ability, right? They seem to have nothing to do with each other. You could suck and have weak “athletic ability” and loyally follow someone, correct? If they’re saying Hayfield went down for #4 because they couldn’t fit the violations anywhere else, I’m not convinced that’s a justified reason. Not that it matters at this point.

Not PP. The way I read the rule it wasn't athletic ability. It was if you transferred just to play a sport. And VHSL wasn't really saying Hayfield was at issue because one or a couple kids did it. They specifically called Hayfield not shutting it down before it became 20-something kids doing it. So the way I read it, VHSL was specifically saying all those one-offs people mentioned upthread from decades ago could happen again today and it wouldn't lead to this same ban. It's when the administration allows a more than a few kids to do it that VHSL will jump in and say something.

Perhaps. But if that’s the case, it’s poorly worded and definitely up for other interpretations.

[Anonymous]

Shame on FCPS And Dr Reid! Robinson may not have had as good of a season as other playoff teams but they think they are in the playoffs and have been practicing all week for their playoff game this Friday. 😡

[Anonymous]

Wow!
FCPS is asking to kick one of their own teams out of the playoffs and replace it with a team found guilty of cheating!

[Anonymous]

So Overton and his entourage are going to mess with a third school now (Robinson) in their egotistical path to winning?

[Anonymous]

How is that fair?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seeing a report that FCPS has filed a request for an injunction to boot Robinson out of the playoffs and restore Hayfield to playoff contention.

What a slimeball Michelle Reid is. I hope Robinson administration goes after her hard. She is total scum.

Do you have a credible source for this before everyone leaps to conclusions?

If this is credible (can search the circuit court Friday docket starting at 6 pm tonight if I'm reading it right) then that is insane and a great way to tick off a whole bunch of people in Fairfax County.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Shame on FCPS And Dr Reid! Robinson may not have had as good of a season as other playoff teams but they think they are in the playoffs and have been practicing all week for their playoff game this Friday. 😡

Robinson is 3-7.. They shouldn't even be in the playoffs

[Anonymous]

Is that a real source

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shame on FCPS And Dr Reid! Robinson may not have had as good of a season as other playoff teams but they think they are in the playoffs and have been practicing all week for their playoff game this Friday. 😡

Robinson is 3-7.. They shouldn't even be in the playoffs

They deserve a spot more so than a team banned for cheating!

[Anonymous]

Yeah Robinson's record is 3-7 but they were told they made playoffs so not right to threaten to kick them out at last minute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seeing a report that FCPS has filed a request for an injunction to boot Robinson out of the playoffs and restore Hayfield to playoff contention.

What a slimeball Michelle Reid is. I hope Robinson administration goes after her hard. She is total scum.

Do you have a credible source for this before everyone leaps to conclusions?

Reid- stop!!!!! Stand down. Move on. Do you realize there is SO much more in FCPS that could use the time and $$$$ you spending on this????!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Riddle me this Mr we/I are so ignorant. If you leave ur current job as a dept head, and people under you leave with you, was that not their choice or is it your fault that you moved n they chose to follow. Do you say stay at your old position and deal with it because I care so much for where I’m leaving. Ignorance is the words you spew. Ignorance is me saying something along the lines of I bet you like the color RED you

It’s absolutely your fault if they move and you had a non-compete. People get sued all the time over recruiting employees. The ones that do it make darn sure they are squeaky clean.

Similarly, VHSL rule 27-9 says no proselytizing. That means
(1) Being asked to move by a member of the school faculty.
(2) Being asked to move by a booster organization or a member of such an organization.
(3) Being given tuition, free text books, allowance for transportation or consideration not afforded other students, athletic or nonathletic.
(4) Any other evidence that a transfer or enrollment was made because of athletic ability.

There are multiple parents that have flat out confessed to #4 on Facebook or the YouTube interview. Those parents say they moved their kid because their kid refused to play for anyone other than Overton because they’ve been with him since the son was 8 years old. That’s a #4 violation. You don’t need text messages, pictures of shuttle vans or anything else. The parents confessed to a #4 violation.

Is it? Not saying the coach and other adults didn’t do anything wrong, but let’s address what you concluded - there's a #4 violation when a transfer is made “because of athletic ability.” Following someone because of loyalty, does not have anything to do with athletic ability, right? They seem to have nothing to do with each other. You could suck and have weak “athletic ability” and loyally follow someone, correct? If they’re saying Hayfield went down for #4 because they couldn’t fit the violations anywhere else, I’m not convinced that’s a justified reason. Not that it matters at this point.

Not PP. The way I read the rule it wasn't athletic ability. It was if you transferred just to play a sport. And VHSL wasn't really saying Hayfield was at issue because one or a couple kids did it. They specifically called Hayfield not shutting it down before it became 20-something kids doing it. So the way I read it, VHSL was specifically saying all those one-offs people mentioned upthread from decades ago could happen again today and it wouldn't lead to this same ban. It's when the administration allows a more than a few kids to do it that VHSL will jump in and say something.

Perhaps. But if that’s the case, it’s poorly worded and definitely up for other interpretations.

The thing is, the interpretation doesn't require one of 1-4. It says those are examples but the committee can do what they want. So that doesn't rule out a transfer made because of loyalty, and such transfers being implicitly encouraged by admin, being counted proselytizing.