Hayfield Football Coach Fired

[Anonymous]

None of the judge's comments on the substance of the matter at all, legally. The ruling was solely based on VHSL
not following their procedural rule. The judge knew how he was going to rule before the hearing began.

Interested to see what happens at the next hearing or if VHSL will attempt to cure by re-doing their steps.

[Anonymous]

If that is the case, VHSL could be in a world of trouble. Add all of that on top of the director choosing to retire? Seems like it's more likely this was bullying hoping there wouldn't be push back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If that is the case, VHSL could be in a world of trouble. Add all of that on top of the director choosing to retire? Seems like it's more likely this was bullying hoping there wouldn't be push back.

Or, more objectively, seems like VHSL made a ruling based upon what they knew and what was clearly way over the line. Maybe they should have expected lawsuits since Hayfield is so clearly over the line that they should not have been expected to follow any rules whatsoever. But I doubt they get sued often for making decisions.

[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.

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.

I don't disagree with what you're saying. My point is I can't think of a reason VSHL would not come prepared. Their own playoff were in jeopardy 3 hours later. The lawyer even asked the judge, what are they supposed to do about the games that are already schedule. With that being said, without throwing logic out the window for the sake of winning an anonymous debate, I don't think VHSL would have held anything back to make there case stronger that ban needed to be upheld so that their playoffs could proceed as normal. If you're insinuating that they came unprepared in order to show all there findings at a later date, then they should've communicated that to all the schools prior to even going to court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes

[Anonymous]

Oh, so you are a Hayfield parent. Tell us more!

[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.

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.

Bully them? Because they enforced the rules and it hurt your little feelings? You can think and feel all you want. All this judge did was give VHSL 2 weeks to properly prepare. Everyone thinks they don't have proof or didn't do an investigation when they haven't even put anything out but a letter. The speculation needs to stop. Until Dec 4th no one knows what they did or didn't fully do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:None of the judge's comments on the substance of the matter at all, legally. The ruling was solely based on VHSL
not following their procedural rule. The judge knew how he was going to rule before the hearing began.

Interested to see what happens at the next hearing or if VHSL will attempt to cure by re-doing their steps.

This is what you're missing. There is nothing to re-do, besides go back and ask parents and kids were they recruited and it doesn't take a genius to know how that will end up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh, so you are a Hayfield parent. Tell us more!

An ex-Hayfield parent with a lot of time on my hands. My kids graduated 3 and 5 years ago respectively.

[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"

Are there transcripts for the ruling? I keep seeing people say the judge said this and that but would like to read the facts straight from the court.

[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"

Didn't VHSL try to interview parents and they didn't show up? I think a school representative showed up instead. I think it was Fritts. That speaks volumes that the parents wanted to avoid VHSL.

[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.

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.

Bully them? Because they enforced the rules and it hurt your little feelings? You can think and feel all you want. All this judge did was give VHSL 2 weeks to properly prepare. Everyone thinks they don't have proof or didn't do an investigation when they haven't even put anything out but a letter. The speculation needs to stop. Until Dec 4th no one knows what they did or didn't fully do.

Well if VHSL wanted 2 weeks to prepare, they hosed Robinson, they could have notified them the minute the petition was filed! Additionally, just so you know, the judge originally proposed a closer date, VHSL lawyer said, "I have to go back to my client but frankly we might not even need another date". That's verbatim out his mouth. It sure doesn't sound like he, needed 2 weeks to prepare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, so you are a Hayfield parent. Tell us more!

An ex-Hayfield parent with a lot of time on my hands. My kids graduated 3 and 5 years ago respectively.

Haha, unfortunately all of us who are commenting apparently have a lot of time on our hands. While I am in the 'group' that has concluded Hayfield has broke the proselytizing rule and should be disciplined for it, I appreciate hearing the points of views of those not directly involved in the situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, so you are a Hayfield parent. Tell us more!

An ex-Hayfield parent with a lot of time on my hands. My kids graduated 3 and 5 years ago respectively.

And you went to the court hearing? Ok

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I don't disagree with what you're saying. My point is I can't think of a reason VSHL would not come prepared. Their own playoff were in jeopardy 3 hours later. The lawyer even asked the judge, what are they supposed to do about the games that are already schedule. With that being said, without throwing logic out the window for the sake of winning an anonymous debate, I don't think VHSL would have held anything back to make there case stronger that ban needed to be upheld so that their playoffs could proceed as normal. If you're insinuating that they came unprepared in order to show all there findings at a later date, then they should've communicated that to all the schools prior to even going to court.

Fwiw, while I can understand why the parents might resort to a lawsuit when their appeals failed, I don't understand why the judge issued the stay. Generally, a stay is issued when there is likelihood of success on the merits but that is not always the reason. It can be because a decision needs to be made and cannot be unmade - if the team is barred from the playoffs, but they should have been eligible, they cannot go back and play the playoffs again in December. But the same is true the other way, if they play but are ineligible, the other teams (including Robinson) cannot go back and redo the playoffs.