Hayfield Football Coach Fired

[Anonymous]

The appeal committee was three different school superintendents. How is that unfair?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: I can’t believe y’all still talking about this. Like move on already.

Were you staring in a mirror as you typed this?

[Anonymous]

What happened to the money?

Tens of thousands of dollars raised on a non sanctioned money platform, collected outside of the FCPS booster system by a FCPS employee with zero oversight and accountability.

How is Reid not addressing this???

Anyone who has worked on any sort of FCPS activity or sport fundraising, from football to marching band to choir to science olympiad knows how strict FCPS is when collecting money from students via booster fundraising or ticket sales.

This part has to be publicly addressed by the school board. It is a flagrant abuse of power that directly gives a middle finger to fundraising protections that are enforced by FCPS in every other club and sport, except apparently, Hayfield football.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What happened to the money?

Tens of thousands of dollars raised on a non sanctioned money platform, collected outside of the FCPS booster system by a FCPS employee with zero oversight and accountability.

How is Reid not addressing this???

Anyone who has worked on any sort of FCPS activity or sport fundraising, from football to marching band to choir to science olympiad knows how strict FCPS is when collecting money from students via booster fundraising or ticket sales.

This part has to be publicly addressed by the school board. It is a flagrant abuse of power that directly gives a middle finger to fundraising protections that are enforced by FCPS in every other club and sport, except apparently, Hayfield football.

If this money, which was ostensibly raised for team activities, ended up in someone's pocket (even a portion of it) does this not constitute wire fraud since it was raised via mobile phone app? And if someone's friends or relatives from a state other than Virginia contributed to this "fundraising" and the money was not used as stated is it a federal crime?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What happened to the money?

Tens of thousands of dollars raised on a non sanctioned money platform, collected outside of the FCPS booster system by a FCPS employee with zero oversight and accountability.

How is Reid not addressing this???

Anyone who has worked on any sort of FCPS activity or sport fundraising, from football to marching band to choir to science olympiad knows how strict FCPS is when collecting money from students via booster fundraising or ticket sales.

This part has to be publicly addressed by the school board. It is a flagrant abuse of power that directly gives a middle finger to fundraising protections that are enforced by FCPS in every other club and sport, except apparently, Hayfield football.

A judge said, Let the boys play. It's all good, no problem at all, nothing to see here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The appeal committee was three different school superintendents. How is that unfair?

DP who believes that Hayfield was in violation of good sportsmanship, even if it can't be proven in a court of law that they violated VHSL rules

The steelman argument here would be, I think, that 3 different school superintendents could all think Hayfield would make their districts look bad because they will play so well. And they were all jealous of the idea that FCPS might get away with it. So they agreed with the penalities just to keep Hayfield down.

The idea would be that whoever is judging the case should have no relationship whatsoever to high school football in VA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think some if not a lot if not all of the Hayfield transfers came there to play football. Some of them may have been recruited, some actually may have an address where they don't actually reside.

My problem here is FCPS did not find anything and VHSL didn't do a thorough investigation so they are relying on 'this looks bad' to hold them accountable. VHSL neglected to actually act on their feelings and instead tried to take to the easy way out and prosecute Hayfield with sneak tactics (the timing) and rules they have in place, that they can't explain what they actually mean. (Spirit of the Game and Proselytizing Rule) The banning and the appeals were all heard by people and committee's appointed by VHSL. That was always going to end the way it did.

Those sneak tactics backfired on VHSL big time once the Hayfield parents decided to be heard by a neutral party, the courts. You can't bring your feelings into a court room and more so you have to provide facts to substantiate your claims.

I watched the judge ask the VHSL lawyer point blank question about their process and how it applied to Hayfield and the lawyer could not answer appropriately.

Snippets from court that hurt VHSL:
- VHSL lawyer says they aren't worried about the Spirit of the Game violation. The judge replies, well why are we here and why was this presented.
- Judge asked the VHSL lawyer, what does Proselytizing Rule mean. VHSL lawyer responds, 'That's a good question'.
- Judge tells the VHSL lawyer you've accused Hayfield of recruiting, I see nothing in your bylaws that defines recruiting. So what and how did they violate this?
- Judge tells the VHSL lawyer that you mentioned a track violation that Hayfield self reported. What does that have to do with the football team and why didn't you suspend the track team?
- Judge says to VHSL lawyer, you mentioned 31 students transferred from Freedom High School and 14 of them transferred to Hayfield. Where are the other 17? Have they been investigated? Are the schools they attending allowed to participate in the playoffs? The VHSL laywer responds (something to the effect), we have no idea.
- Lastly and to me most detrimental to VHSL case. VHSL claims FCPS did not do enough in their investigation. Judge ask the lawyer, where is the proof you did any investigation at all. Have you interviewed parents? Have you interviewed students? Did you do residency checks? All to which the answer was NO. The Judge replied, so what did you do because FCPS has provided documentation that they've actually did all these things.
- (this is what I think showed VHSL hand) VHSL told the judge, that Hayfield parents filing this emergency injunction at the last minute leaves them in a position to disrupt their playoffs. The judge replies, VHSL you decided to notify them with one week left in the season and they followed your appeals process to which they were officially disqualified on the last day of the regular season. The judge ripped this apart basically stating VHSL chose this path of timing.

In my opinion, Overton seems like he's a great coach that has parents willing to make the sacrifice to continue to have their children coached by him. This doesn't seem like a situation where the kids even needed to be recruited by him. However I do 100% believe they more than likely cut corners and covered their tracks to get kids enrolled at Hayfield. In America's court, when you accused somebody of something as VHSL did, you actually have to have proof, which VHSL neglected to provide or in this case or even put forth effort. They relied strictly on back door meetings to punish Hayfield and it backfired.

I said all this to say, Hayfield may not be clean, but the governing body VHSL severely dropped the ball on this. Additionally, I don't even know why they would attend another court date on Dec 4th. Their argument is 'Spirit of the Game' and ' Proselytizing' neither of which they can prove. There is no way Hayfield lawyer allows them to introduce any residency claims, any collusion and all the other stuff I've read on this forum that people think will be introduced. Simply put, none of that stuff applies to the claims at which VHSL decided to punish Hayfield. Remember they were not punished for having ineligible players, VHSL actually cleared them, so that's not a claim VHSL can now use.

Thought from fairfax times reporting that judge decision last week was purely procedural, not on the merits as well. Specifically, that the initial decision by VHSL was made by an individual, rather than by a committee (which is specifically required by their by-laws in cases where the punishment could rise to probation level). Was that not discussed during hearing? Items above sound like discussion on the merits - but sounds like the injunction was made purely on following-the-process level?

[Anonymous]

Thought from fairfax times reporting that judge decision last week was purely procedural, not on the merits as well. Specifically, that the initial decision by VHSL was made by an individual, rather than by a committee (which is specifically required by their by-laws in cases where the punishment could rise to probation level). Was that not discussed during hearing? Items above sound like discussion on the merits - but sounds like the injunction was made purely on following-the-process level?


You are correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What happened to the money?

Tens of thousands of dollars raised on a non sanctioned money platform, collected outside of the FCPS booster system by a FCPS employee with zero oversight and accountability.

How is Reid not addressing this???

Anyone who has worked on any sort of FCPS activity or sport fundraising, from football to marching band to choir to science olympiad knows how strict FCPS is when collecting money from students via booster fundraising or ticket sales.

This part has to be publicly addressed by the school board. It is a flagrant abuse of power that directly gives a middle finger to fundraising protections that are enforced by FCPS in every other club and sport, except apparently, Hayfield football.

Because like most of the rumors circulating, this is not true. Unless of course you want to investigation the 30+ other schools in the state of Virginia that used the exact same platform for fundraisers this year amongst multiple sports this past fall. I've seen at least 7 other schools that have posted pictures with the BIG CHECK from the same fundraiser. Another school (in FCPS) posted pictures for their Football, Volleyball, Boy Volleyball and Cheer teams fundraising efforts using the same vendor.

Much like VHSL, you can't prosecute on your feelings and heresay. Facts actually matter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Thought from fairfax times reporting that judge decision last week was purely procedural, not on the merits as well. Specifically, that the initial decision by VHSL was made by an individual, rather than by a committee (which is specifically required by their by-laws in cases where the punishment could rise to probation level). Was that not discussed during hearing? Items above sound like discussion on the merits - but sounds like the injunction was made purely on following-the-process level?

You are correct.

The injunction was made with the assumption they would win at trial. By allowing them to play, Robinson gets kicked out. Should Hayfield lose, Robinson parents need to push for firings in gate house

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some if not a lot if not all of the Hayfield transfers came there to play football. Some of them may have been recruited, some actually may have an address where they don't actually reside.

My problem here is FCPS did not find anything and VHSL didn't do a thorough investigation so they are relying on 'this looks bad' to hold them accountable. VHSL neglected to actually act on their feelings and instead tried to take to the easy way out and prosecute Hayfield with sneak tactics (the timing) and rules they have in place, that they can't explain what they actually mean. (Spirit of the Game and Proselytizing Rule) The banning and the appeals were all heard by people and committee's appointed by VHSL. That was always going to end the way it did.

Those sneak tactics backfired on VHSL big time once the Hayfield parents decided to be heard by a neutral party, the courts. You can't bring your feelings into a court room and more so you have to provide facts to substantiate your claims.

I watched the judge ask the VHSL lawyer point blank question about their process and how it applied to Hayfield and the lawyer could not answer appropriately.

Snippets from court that hurt VHSL:
- VHSL lawyer says they aren't worried about the Spirit of the Game violation. The judge replies, well why are we here and why was this presented.
- Judge asked the VHSL lawyer, what does Proselytizing Rule mean. VHSL lawyer responds, 'That's a good question'.
- Judge tells the VHSL lawyer you've accused Hayfield of recruiting, I see nothing in your bylaws that defines recruiting. So what and how did they violate this?
- Judge tells the VHSL lawyer that you mentioned a track violation that Hayfield self reported. What does that have to do with the football team and why didn't you suspend the track team?
- Judge says to VHSL lawyer, you mentioned 31 students transferred from Freedom High School and 14 of them transferred to Hayfield. Where are the other 17? Have they been investigated? Are the schools they attending allowed to participate in the playoffs? The VHSL laywer responds (something to the effect), we have no idea.
- Lastly and to me most detrimental to VHSL case. VHSL claims FCPS did not do enough in their investigation. Judge ask the lawyer, where is the proof you did any investigation at all. Have you interviewed parents? Have you interviewed students? Did you do residency checks? All to which the answer was NO. The Judge replied, so what did you do because FCPS has provided documentation that they've actually did all these things.
- (this is what I think showed VHSL hand) VHSL told the judge, that Hayfield parents filing this emergency injunction at the last minute leaves them in a position to disrupt their playoffs. The judge replies, VHSL you decided to notify them with one week left in the season and they followed your appeals process to which they were officially disqualified on the last day of the regular season. The judge ripped this apart basically stating VHSL chose this path of timing.

In my opinion, Overton seems like he's a great coach that has parents willing to make the sacrifice to continue to have their children coached by him. This doesn't seem like a situation where the kids even needed to be recruited by him. However I do 100% believe they more than likely cut corners and covered their tracks to get kids enrolled at Hayfield. In America's court, when you accused somebody of something as VHSL did, you actually have to have proof, which VHSL neglected to provide or in this case or even put forth effort. They relied strictly on back door meetings to punish Hayfield and it backfired.

I said all this to say, Hayfield may not be clean, but the governing body VHSL severely dropped the ball on this. Additionally, I don't even know why they would attend another court date on Dec 4th. Their argument is 'Spirit of the Game' and ' Proselytizing' neither of which they can prove. There is no way Hayfield lawyer allows them to introduce any residency claims, any collusion and all the other stuff I've read on this forum that people think will be introduced. Simply put, none of that stuff applies to the claims at which VHSL decided to punish Hayfield. Remember they were not punished for having ineligible players, VHSL actually cleared them, so that's not a claim VHSL can now use.

That’s why Hayfield will get to play the season out. Not sure why the haters are acting like way they are. I don’t think they are so talented that no other team can win.

VHSL's concern should be (probably is) that if they let this slide, individual coaches and perhaps even entire schools around the state will start going past just gray areas in the rules and into outright cheating on the issue of recruiting and player residency and the like. I mean who doesn't want to play for, say, the best coach in their district/region for their sport? How many parents whose kids really want to play in college wouldn't be tempted to pull some shenanigans if they thought those shenanigans would improve the chances. Obviously many would pass - but if "everyone" is doing it after the Hayfield thing, then many won't.

If VHSL's rules on this are ambiguous and don't hold up in court, they need to get some lawyers in there and fix them, or this problem keeps getting worse and there keep being lawsuits over this school's X team and that school's Y team.

100% agreed. If that is a concern for VHSL, they need to dedicate their resources to updating their rulebook to not allow these violations. At the end of the day it seems like Hayfield used VHSL's own rules to their advantage, which I'm sure others have/are as well, but they did it to a level that highlights the inconsistencies. If VHSL really wants to solve their problems they will update their rules to be black and white with no grey area. However, I'm not convinced VHSL wants to remove the grey area as their would more than likely as their would more than likely have unintended victims (take that how you want), but they can't have it both ways and pick and chose when to enforce.

Hayfield has definitely set a precedent that you should challenge all ambiguous rules that don't actual require any facts to punish. This would not be the case if the rules were blank and white.

We shall see. Fwiw, sportsmanship ≠ suing when you get banned and lose two appeals. Sorry not sorry.

(Bringing lawyers and lawsuits into things rarely makes anything better. Hayfield should be careful and hope they don't get more than they asked for.)

FWIW, losing 2 appeals by 2 committee's hand selected by the single person that levied the punishment, doesn't exactly scream fair.

In the real world, appeals are heard by totally unbiased parties if for no other reason to not be influenced by previous bias on known information. VHSL has a structure set up where the punishment is levied by THEM. An initial appeal is set up by THEM. The additional appeal is set up by THEM. I bet if we dive a little deeper into situations that were appealed on VHSL ruling, they are very consistent with this appeal structure and final ruling.

In the real world, that's how organizations work. Are you thinking they should have gone to arbitration? SMH

And, in the real world you have methods of potentially stopping this unethical bully method, that this time someone stood up and fought against. Sounds a lot like the VHSL was tryna run a tyrannical system

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some if not a lot if not all of the Hayfield transfers came there to play football. Some of them may have been recruited, some actually may have an address where they don't actually reside.

My problem here is FCPS did not find anything and VHSL didn't do a thorough investigation so they are relying on 'this looks bad' to hold them accountable. VHSL neglected to actually act on their feelings and instead tried to take to the easy way out and prosecute Hayfield with sneak tactics (the timing) and rules they have in place, that they can't explain what they actually mean. (Spirit of the Game and Proselytizing Rule) The banning and the appeals were all heard by people and committee's appointed by VHSL. That was always going to end the way it did.

Those sneak tactics backfired on VHSL big time once the Hayfield parents decided to be heard by a neutral party, the courts. You can't bring your feelings into a court room and more so you have to provide facts to substantiate your claims.

I watched the judge ask the VHSL lawyer point blank question about their process and how it applied to Hayfield and the lawyer could not answer appropriately.

Snippets from court that hurt VHSL:
- VHSL lawyer says they aren't worried about the Spirit of the Game violation. The judge replies, well why are we here and why was this presented.
- Judge asked the VHSL lawyer, what does Proselytizing Rule mean. VHSL lawyer responds, 'That's a good question'.
- Judge tells the VHSL lawyer you've accused Hayfield of recruiting, I see nothing in your bylaws that defines recruiting. So what and how did they violate this?
- Judge tells the VHSL lawyer that you mentioned a track violation that Hayfield self reported. What does that have to do with the football team and why didn't you suspend the track team?
- Judge says to VHSL lawyer, you mentioned 31 students transferred from Freedom High School and 14 of them transferred to Hayfield. Where are the other 17? Have they been investigated? Are the schools they attending allowed to participate in the playoffs? The VHSL laywer responds (something to the effect), we have no idea.
- Lastly and to me most detrimental to VHSL case. VHSL claims FCPS did not do enough in their investigation. Judge ask the lawyer, where is the proof you did any investigation at all. Have you interviewed parents? Have you interviewed students? Did you do residency checks? All to which the answer was NO. The Judge replied, so what did you do because FCPS has provided documentation that they've actually did all these things.
- (this is what I think showed VHSL hand) VHSL told the judge, that Hayfield parents filing this emergency injunction at the last minute leaves them in a position to disrupt their playoffs. The judge replies, VHSL you decided to notify them with one week left in the season and they followed your appeals process to which they were officially disqualified on the last day of the regular season. The judge ripped this apart basically stating VHSL chose this path of timing.

In my opinion, Overton seems like he's a great coach that has parents willing to make the sacrifice to continue to have their children coached by him. This doesn't seem like a situation where the kids even needed to be recruited by him. However I do 100% believe they more than likely cut corners and covered their tracks to get kids enrolled at Hayfield. In America's court, when you accused somebody of something as VHSL did, you actually have to have proof, which VHSL neglected to provide or in this case or even put forth effort. They relied strictly on back door meetings to punish Hayfield and it backfired.

I said all this to say, Hayfield may not be clean, but the governing body VHSL severely dropped the ball on this. Additionally, I don't even know why they would attend another court date on Dec 4th. Their argument is 'Spirit of the Game' and ' Proselytizing' neither of which they can prove. There is no way Hayfield lawyer allows them to introduce any residency claims, any collusion and all the other stuff I've read on this forum that people think will be introduced. Simply put, none of that stuff applies to the claims at which VHSL decided to punish Hayfield. Remember they were not punished for having ineligible players, VHSL actually cleared them, so that's not a claim VHSL can now use.

Thought from fairfax times reporting that judge decision last week was purely procedural, not on the merits as well. Specifically, that the initial decision by VHSL was made by an individual, rather than by a committee (which is specifically required by their by-laws in cases where the punishment could rise to probation level). Was that not discussed during hearing? Items above sound like discussion on the merits - but sounds like the injunction was made purely on following-the-process level?

Well that's technically all an injunction is. Basically a restraining order that doesn't allow you to proceed with the action or non-action until the case his heard. The case will bring out all the facts in more detail but that doesn't mean VHSL can argue additional reasons as to why they banned Hayfield. 'VHSL banned Hayfield for XYZ reasons'. The case will determine if VHSL was responsible in banning Hayfield for XYZ reasons. They will not determine if VHSL should have banned Hayfield for ABC reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thought from fairfax times reporting that judge decision last week was purely procedural, not on the merits as well. Specifically, that the initial decision by VHSL was made by an individual, rather than by a committee (which is specifically required by their by-laws in cases where the punishment could rise to probation level). Was that not discussed during hearing? Items above sound like discussion on the merits - but sounds like the injunction was made purely on following-the-process level?
At 3-7 facing a number 1 seed they already lost to, does that even sound smart or logical. Now what I do know is that teams split the playoff gates, and to make things even partially better that Hayfield first round would be a 3 way split of the gate. That’s to compensate Robinson for something which is better than nothing at all

You are correct.

The injunction was made with the assumption they would win at trial. By allowing them to play, Robinson gets kicked out. Should Hayfield lose, Robinson parents need to push for firings in gate house

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What happened to the money?

Tens of thousands of dollars raised on a non sanctioned money platform, collected outside of the FCPS booster system by a FCPS employee with zero oversight and accountability.

How is Reid not addressing this???

Anyone who has worked on any sort of FCPS activity or sport fundraising, from football to marching band to choir to science olympiad knows how strict FCPS is when collecting money from students via booster fundraising or ticket sales.

This part has to be publicly addressed by the school board. It is a flagrant abuse of power that directly gives a middle finger to fundraising protections that are enforced by FCPS in every other club and sport, except apparently, Hayfield football.

Because like most of the rumors circulating, this is not true. Unless of course you want to investigation the 30+ other schools in the state of Virginia that used the exact same platform for fundraisers this year amongst multiple sports this past fall. I've seen at least 7 other schools that have posted pictures with the BIG CHECK from the same fundraiser. Another school (in FCPS) posted pictures for their Football, Volleyball, Boy Volleyball and Cheer teams fundraising efforts using the same vendor.

Much like VHSL, you can't prosecute on your feelings and heresay. Facts actually matter

ALOT of folks prosecuting on this site and with their feelings rather than UNBIASED facts. A lot of hearsay speculation an innuendo tho

[Anonymous]

Why are 95% of the posts in favor of Hayfield written with the grammar and syntax of a second gradee?