Hayfield Football Coach Fired

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great (and encouraging) that there are still groups of adults willing to stand up for what’s right (Fairfax City board and these coaches who are doing things the right way and serving as honest role models for our kids).

This is not remotely about football. This is about standing up for having integrity, being honest, being fair and following the rules (no matter what the industry).

Why didn't the Mt. Vernon coach sign the letter? All the other coaches did.

Good question. Maybe it has something to do with the relationship the Mt. Vernon coach has with Fritts, Hayfield's DSA?
Coach Isaiah Taylor (MVHS coach) is in his 3rd season - he was coaching a high school on the Eastern Shore of MD before taking the MV job. Monty Fritts, was MV's Assistant DSA and head football coach - he resigned the coaching job at the end of the Fall '22 season. He was involved in hiring Taylor for the MV job. Fritts left MVHS for the Hayfield job at the end of the '23 school year, so he was still at MV during Taylor's first year as football coach. Maybe Taylor feels some sort of affinity for Fritts?

BTW - West Po's head coach, Chadwick Lewis, was an assistant under Fritts at MVHS. But he signed the letter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t the obvious solution here to go to a higher court to get the injunction overturned, and reinstate the ban ? County circuit is lowest possible court.

Can a Va lawyer answer this ?

P.S. All the name calling/personal attacks are useless. Grow up.

An attorney already responded and basically said the VHSL has a weak case and Hayfield has the better of the argument.

Not really. The opposite. But the VHSL lawyer was not well prepared, nor was FCPS. The judge was well prepared and did most of the lawyering for FCPS himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t the obvious solution here to go to a higher court to get the injunction overturned, and reinstate the ban ? County circuit is lowest possible court.

Can a Va lawyer answer this ?

P.S. All the name calling/personal attacks are useless. Grow up.

An attorney already responded and basically said the VHSL has a weak case and Hayfield has the better of the argument.

Not really. The opposite. But the VHSL lawyer was not well prepared, nor was FCPS. The judge was well prepared and did most of the lawyering for FCPS himself.

Not a lawyer, as you will be able to tell by this question. Is that normal? For a judge to ask better and more insightful questions than the parents/FCPS attorney? It sounds like, as you said, the parents/FCPS attorney was not prepared to pursue any of the issues that the judge figured out on their behalf?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great (and encouraging) that there are still groups of adults willing to stand up for what’s right (Fairfax City board and these coaches who are doing things the right way and serving as honest role models for our kids).

This is not remotely about football. This is about standing up for having integrity, being honest, being fair and following the rules (no matter what the industry).

Agree and good for those coaches especially for being willing to be public with their names. Openly defying your employer (FCPS-who have been tilting the scale for Hayfield all along) takes guts.

Yes - and frankly those guys are providing an unbelievably strong example to the kids (who this should be about). Coaches get short shrift sometimes but they're taking bigger risks and yet sure seem to be acting more impressively than a bunch of administrators/bureaucrats.

[Anonymous]

Slightly off topic, but I remember seeing an article on Maxprep, where a school in LA county pulled a “Hayfield”. The 4 other teams in their division agreed they would all forfeit their games in the regular season.

It seems to be the practical solution, when school leaders won’t act. If every opponent did this, it would eviscerate the offending school’s season.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t the obvious solution here to go to a higher court to get the injunction overturned, and reinstate the ban ? County circuit is lowest possible court.

Can a Va lawyer answer this ?

P.S. All the name calling/personal attacks are useless. Grow up.

An attorney already responded and basically said the VHSL has a weak case and Hayfield has the better of the argument.

Not really. The opposite. But the VHSL lawyer was not well prepared, nor was FCPS. The judge was well prepared and did most of the lawyering for FCPS himself.

Not a lawyer, as you will be able to tell by this question. Is that normal? For a judge to ask better and more insightful questions than the parents/FCPS attorney? It sounds like, as you said, the parents/FCPS attorney was not prepared to pursue any of the issues that the judge figured out on their behalf?

Sometimes it happens, if the judge is diligent or especially interested in a particular issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the kids really live in the Hayfield district there would be no problem, right? Is the issue that everyone thinks they (the new recruits) gave fake addresses to play for the Hayfield coach? What if they all actually rented apartments in the district to attend Hayfield - would that be okay? In the end, it is just a bunch of kids who want to play football . . . they are going to play somewhere. Not sure adults should be punishing kids by taking away their high school sport (even if parents cheated with fake addresses).

Is this post for real? Or trolling?

It seems to sum up the entirety of the defense of Hatfield's conduct. With nonsense.

If this was the response in court, no wonder the judge issued a TRO. Strike as non-responsive/answer the questions, counsel.

\

The judge ruled on a legal technicality, not on any actual facts. Judge ruled that VHSL didn't follow one of its procedural steps correctly.

The judge ruled on multiple things not just the fact that VHSL didn't follow it's own steps. Does anybody actually care that the judge asked the VHSL point blank, "Did you do an investigation" and VHSL's replay was "No, we believe that XYZ occurred". I really wish people would stop spreading the false information that VHSL actually did anything aside from issue a punishment. The athletes that VHSL did not clear, have not played a single down this year for Hayfield. Which is why they can't/couldn't go the eligibility route, because no ineligible players have played.

The reason the Hayfield parents went the court route is because nobody to include VHSL wants to operate with the facts. Everybody wants to operate on the optics, misleading articles and emotional mindset of individuals that are in position of power. You simple can NOT take action against somebody because you feel like the did something wrong. You actually have to show what they did wrong and repeating that 50 students transferred from his previous school is very catchy builds strong opinions, you still have to show that at least 1 of the 50 operated outside of the rules. I personally believe if FCPS, VHSL and mother Theresa could have shown that 1 student operated illegally they would be building a case around THAT, but we haven't seen that yet.

You don't understand the legal process. The only ruling issued was the injunction, which the judge granted solely on the basis of VHSL's procedural error.
The judge made zero factual findings.

Exactly - it doesn't matter what questions he asked during hearing, the ruling itself was purely on procedural errors. Those questions certainly preview what judge will need to understand during Dec 4th hearing on the merits - so that lawyer has 2 weeks to prepare and better have better answers this time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great (and encouraging) that there are still groups of adults willing to stand up for what’s right (Fairfax City board and these coaches who are doing things the right way and serving as honest role models for our kids).

This is not remotely about football. This is about standing up for having integrity, being honest, being fair and following the rules (no matter what the industry).

Agree and good for those coaches especially for being willing to be public with their names. Openly defying your employer (FCPS-who have been tilting the scale for Hayfield all along) takes guts.

Yes - and frankly those guys are providing an unbelievably strong example to the kids (who this should be about). Coaches get short shrift sometimes but they're taking bigger risks and yet sure seem to be acting more impressively than a bunch of administrators/bureaucrats.

I was thinking the same. These six coaches are amazing role models for their kids and others. Maybe the Hayfield kids will get wind of this...it would be nice for them to get to see how adults with morals and scruples act.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Slightly off topic, but I remember seeing an article on Maxprep, where a school in LA county pulled a “Hayfield”. The 4 other teams in their division agreed they would all forfeit their games in the regular season.

It seems to be the practical solution, when school leaders won’t act. If every opponent did this, it would eviscerate the offending school’s season.

This is the Marine League out in LA County. The school is Narbone. I didn't see the MaxPreps article but I did see this SI article this weekend (link below). May as well call them Hayfield West. They did the same thing Overton had his kids do: claim they were homeless etc.

https://www.si.com/high-school/california/narbonne-football-players-deemed-ineligible-in-playoffs-for-fraudulent-documentation-01jd0xmk6rhy

[Anonymous]

Maybe coined a new term here, the “Hayfield”. Need to call Webster’s, and this one added.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t the obvious solution here to go to a higher court to get the injunction overturned, and reinstate the ban ? County circuit is lowest possible court.

Can a Va lawyer answer this ?

P.S. All the name calling/personal attacks are useless. Grow up.

That's an option! However I'm fairly confident that any judge that's not tainted and operating on the facts presented, will continue to rule against VHSL. Point blank period, VHSL dropped the ball by attempting to be a bully and not actually doing the investigation to present their findings that allowed the to justify the ban. If you couldn't produce it then, how can you produce it in the future. My theory is the VHSL planned to make there ruling, allow enough time for the proper appeals and that Hayfield would not have enough time (or resources to do anything that matters). Remember Hayfield filed the petition with 1 business day's notice. If Hayfield parents had not field their petition by the following Wednesday and was able to be heard by a judge that same Friday and the games had actually already started, I think everybody would have folded and moved on with life.

VHSL own timing made this a mess and my belief is because they knew they didn't have a strong 'legal' case. Had they had a strong case or solid findings/evidence, they could have made this same ruling at anytime starting in August and I'm pretty sure everything would be cleared up by now. However notifying Hayfield at the last possible minute and ending all levels of appeal on the very last day of the regular season, was on purpose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the kids really live in the Hayfield district there would be no problem, right? Is the issue that everyone thinks they (the new recruits) gave fake addresses to play for the Hayfield coach? What if they all actually rented apartments in the district to attend Hayfield - would that be okay? In the end, it is just a bunch of kids who want to play football . . . they are going to play somewhere. Not sure adults should be punishing kids by taking away their high school sport (even if parents cheated with fake addresses).

Is this post for real? Or trolling?

It seems to sum up the entirety of the defense of Hatfield's conduct. With nonsense.

If this was the response in court, no wonder the judge issued a TRO. Strike as non-responsive/answer the questions, counsel.

\

The judge ruled on a legal technicality, not on any actual facts. Judge ruled that VHSL didn't follow one of its procedural steps correctly.

The judge ruled on multiple things not just the fact that VHSL didn't follow it's own steps. Does anybody actually care that the judge asked the VHSL point blank, "Did you do an investigation" and VHSL's replay was "No, we believe that XYZ occurred". I really wish people would stop spreading the false information that VHSL actually did anything aside from issue a punishment. The athletes that VHSL did not clear, have not played a single down this year for Hayfield. Which is why they can't/couldn't go the eligibility route, because no ineligible players have played.

The reason the Hayfield parents went the court route is because nobody to include VHSL wants to operate with the facts. Everybody wants to operate on the optics, misleading articles and emotional mindset of individuals that are in position of power. You simple can NOT take action against somebody because you feel like the did something wrong. You actually have to show what they did wrong and repeating that 50 students transferred from his previous school is very catchy builds strong opinions, you still have to show that at least 1 of the 50 operated outside of the rules. I personally believe if FCPS, VHSL and mother Theresa could have shown that 1 student operated illegally they would be building a case around THAT, but we haven't seen that yet.

You don't understand the legal process. The only ruling issued was the injunction, which the judge granted solely on the basis of VHSL's procedural error.
The judge made zero factual findings.

My apologies, you are correct about the ruling. However, the judge highlight MULTIPLE issues with the VHSL case. Like you said you did an investigation so what exactly did you do. Do you interview parents? No. Did you interview kids? No. Did you verify residences? No. Ok so what exactly did you investigate to come to the conclusion that these kids were recruited which is your claim. So while they may have ruled on something specific, the judge did not take lightly to the lack of facts presented by VHSL. He even said multiple times, "Everything you have given me says, we believe or we think"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great (and encouraging) that there are still groups of adults willing to stand up for what’s right (Fairfax City board and these coaches who are doing things the right way and serving as honest role models for our kids).

This is not remotely about football. This is about standing up for having integrity, being honest, being fair and following the rules (no matter what the industry).

Why didn't the Mt. Vernon coach sign the letter? All the other coaches did.

Good question. Maybe it has something to do with the relationship the Mt. Vernon coach has with Fritts, Hayfield's DSA?
Coach Isaiah Taylor (MVHS coach) is in his 3rd season - he was coaching a high school on the Eastern Shore of MD before taking the MV job. Monty Fritts, was MV's Assistant DSA and head football coach - he resigned the coaching job at the end of the Fall '22 season. He was involved in hiring Taylor for the MV job. Fritts left MVHS for the Hayfield job at the end of the '23 school year, so he was still at MV during Taylor's first year as football coach. Maybe Taylor feels some sort of affinity for Fritts?

BTW - West Po's head coach, Chadwick Lewis, was an assistant under Fritts at MVHS. But he signed the letter.

Because they aren't a playoff team. not all this garbage about MVHS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the kids really live in the Hayfield district there would be no problem, right? Is the issue that everyone thinks they (the new recruits) gave fake addresses to play for the Hayfield coach? What if they all actually rented apartments in the district to attend Hayfield - would that be okay? In the end, it is just a bunch of kids who want to play football . . . they are going to play somewhere. Not sure adults should be punishing kids by taking away their high school sport (even if parents cheated with fake addresses).

Is this post for real? Or trolling?

It seems to sum up the entirety of the defense of Hatfield's conduct. With nonsense.

If this was the response in court, no wonder the judge issued a TRO. Strike as non-responsive/answer the questions, counsel.

\

The judge ruled on a legal technicality, not on any actual facts. Judge ruled that VHSL didn't follow one of its procedural steps correctly.

The judge ruled on multiple things not just the fact that VHSL didn't follow it's own steps. Does anybody actually care that the judge asked the VHSL point blank, "Did you do an investigation" and VHSL's replay was "No, we believe that XYZ occurred". I really wish people would stop spreading the false information that VHSL actually did anything aside from issue a punishment. The athletes that VHSL did not clear, have not played a single down this year for Hayfield. Which is why they can't/couldn't go the eligibility route, because no ineligible players have played.

The reason the Hayfield parents went the court route is because nobody to include VHSL wants to operate with the facts. Everybody wants to operate on the optics, misleading articles and emotional mindset of individuals that are in position of power. You simple can NOT take action against somebody because you feel like the did something wrong. You actually have to show what they did wrong and repeating that 50 students transferred from his previous school is very catchy builds strong opinions, you still have to show that at least 1 of the 50 operated outside of the rules. I personally believe if FCPS, VHSL and mother Theresa could have shown that 1 student operated illegally they would be building a case around THAT, but we haven't seen that yet.

You don't understand the legal process. The only ruling issued was the injunction, which the judge granted solely on the basis of VHSL's procedural error.
The judge made zero factual findings.

My apologies, you are correct about the ruling. However, the judge highlight MULTIPLE issues with the VHSL case. Like you said you did an investigation so what exactly did you do. Do you interview parents? No. Did you interview kids? No. Did you verify residences? No. Ok so what exactly did you investigate to come to the conclusion that these kids were recruited which is your claim. So while they may have ruled on something specific, the judge did not take lightly to the lack of facts presented by VHSL. He even said multiple times, "Everything you have given me says, we believe or we think"

So you were there in the courtroom? No transcript was published.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t the obvious solution here to go to a higher court to get the injunction overturned, and reinstate the ban ? County circuit is lowest possible court.

Can a Va lawyer answer this ?

P.S. All the name calling/personal attacks are useless. Grow up.

An attorney already responded and basically said the VHSL has a weak case and Hayfield has the better of the argument.

Not really. The opposite. But the VHSL lawyer was not well prepared, nor was FCPS. The judge was well prepared and did most of the lawyering for FCPS himself.

Not a lawyer, as you will be able to tell by this question. Is that normal? For a judge to ask better and more insightful questions than the parents/FCPS attorney? It sounds like, as you said, the parents/FCPS attorney was not prepared to pursue any of the issues that the judge figured out on their behalf?

I wouldn't say that. The judge was very prepared and if you're the plaintiff counsel and the judge (who is also making the ruling) is doing your job for you, you sit back and let him.