Hayfield Football Coach Fired

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

X1000.

If this is confirmed this should absolutely be the end of Michelle Reid’s tenure as superintendent. There had already been multiple appeals to VHSL. Wasting our money to litigate in court on behalf of a bunch of cheaters is simply unacceptable. She has terrible judgment and needs to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

X1000.

If this is confirmed this should absolutely be the end of Michelle Reid’s tenure as superintendent. There had already been multiple appeals to VHSL. Wasting our money to litigate in court on behalf of a bunch of cheaters is simply unacceptable. She has terrible judgment and needs to go.

When is next Board meeting? Are people writing their Board rep on this waste of $ and time? I want FCPS to share total cost to protest, appeal, appeal and then take to court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok, but the scenario given only talked about parents/kids that want to follow someone who has coached them since they were 8 out of loyalty. Where is this addressed in the handbook?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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!

They want a chance to win a championship. I’m sorry, but Robinson doesn’t give FCPS as good of a chance to bring home the trophy as Hayfield.

Hayfield got robbed because of some white supremacists. I hope FCPS doesn’t let this ride. They have attorneys on staff. Fight this!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok, but the scenario given only talked about parents/kids that want to follow someone who has coached them since they were 8 out of loyalty. Where is this addressed in the handbook?

And who is to say that is the only reason. I’m sure they had other reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok, but the scenario given only talked about parents/kids that want to follow someone who has coached them since they were 8 out of loyalty. Where is this addressed in the handbook?

And who is to say that is the only reason. I’m sure they had other reasons.

Ok, well, what are they? It seems like there should be enough evidence to show a rule violation.

If all they have is loyalty, I don’t think that’s enough. I have a kid in another sport and have absolutely seen parents out of their own free will follow coaches, uprooting their lives and inconveniencing themselves. It’s bizarre and unnecessary to me, but some parents/kids do this.

[Anonymous]

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.

Since you say parents hv done this that would mean that FB posts would hv been copied or YouTube pages found, you say they exist but no one has ever seen them. If he violated #4 then yes he’s guilty I think ppl just want to see it

[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?

And here we go, lol…just for S n giggles I hope it does go thru. Now at this point potentially all biases will not have a say so. But again either way it’s a big mess and no one wins VHSL FCPS hayfield kids in or out of playoffs

[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.

Which leaves interpretations and opinions not good on neither side

[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. 😡

It’s unfortunate but if they don’t belong then they don’t belong, whomever the team is. But now folks mad at FCPS because yall want them to be guilty but they feel they did nothing wrong and wish to clear their name. It didn’t matter any team booted was FCpS so that means nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

All jokes aside, people were talking about playing games when they shouldn’t and getting kids hurt, so why doesn’t that apply now. They mentally have checked out KNOW their season is all but over but to send them out there just to get beat on by whomever makes a whole bunch of sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok, but the scenario given only talked about parents/kids that want to follow someone who has coached them since they were 8 out of loyalty. Where is this addressed in the handbook?

It’s not, but to make there point this is what they have to go off off. These kids did nothing wrong and are being punished for it and that in itself is not right

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

X1000.

If this is confirmed this should absolutely be the end of Michelle Reid’s tenure as superintendent. There had already been multiple appeals to VHSL. Wasting our money to litigate in court on behalf of a bunch of cheaters is simply unacceptable. She has terrible judgment and needs to go.

lol, you typing big mad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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!

They want a chance to win a championship. I’m sorry, but Robinson doesn’t give FCPS as good of a chance to bring home the trophy as Hayfield.

Hayfield got robbed because of some white supremacists. I hope FCPS doesn’t let this ride. They have attorneys on staff. Fight this!

I won’t play the race card but it does stink to the high heavens. I’d like to think as a world we’re beyond race bailing. I know we’re not but I’d love to think it. If FCPScis willing to fight then I’ll be damned that they trying to stand on business and not be bullied either

[Anonymous]

If the injunction is inserted or if it isn’t these playoffs are tainted and these kids unfortunately hv to endure this nonsense. I hope no kids get hurt or even parents because someone parent gonna feel froggy gets themselves into unnecessary situations