Hayfield Football Coach Fired

[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.

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.

Prove it. I refuse to believe anyone in this forum. Everyone keeps saying the judge said this they said that. Depending on what side you are for is how you are going to interpret what was said.

[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.

The writing is on the Wall. Hayfield is in it and may win it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Truth. Which is why I think VHSL's motive all along was the timing of this.

In order to exclude Hayfield from the playoffs you have to let them know in a timely manner so they can go through the appeals process designed. You don't want this appeals process to go past creating the brackets because it effects an additional school (Robinson) and seedings. So it's no coincidence that everything ended on the final day of the regular season.

No matter the facts, the opinions, the rumors, if at least 1 Region 6C playoff game is played, there is no turning back. Yes, Hayfield can still sue, but I'm positive the kids wanted to play so there's really no point. The other side of this is, now that Hayfield has been allowed to play, if on Dec 4th the judge rules against Hayfield they would probably remove them from the playoffs and proceed but there's not going back for the teams they defeated. In the event the hearing is pushed back after the playoffs are over and the judge rules in favor of VHSL, more than likely any winnings will be vacated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Prove it. I refuse to believe anyone in this forum. Everyone keeps saying the judge said this they said that. Depending on what side you are for is how you are going to interpret what was said.

but you believe the Fairfax Times right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Prove it. I refuse to believe anyone in this forum. Everyone keeps saying the judge said this they said that. Depending on what side you are for is how you are going to interpret what was said.

but you believe the Fairfax Times right?

The Fairfax Times reporting has been accurate since this story broke in the summer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Prove it. I refuse to believe anyone in this forum. Everyone keeps saying the judge said this they said that. Depending on what side you are for is how you are going to interpret what was said.

but you believe the Fairfax Times right?

Well according to half the people commenting here they are wrong. So who to believe is the question.

[FrankWinston]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Prove it. I refuse to believe anyone in this forum. Everyone keeps saying the judge said this they said that. Depending on what side you are for is how you are going to interpret what was said.

but you believe the Fairfax Times right?

The Fairfax Times reporting has been accurate since this story broke in the summer.

It appears their reporting has been spot on. That said, even if only 50% of what they have reported out is true, Overton, Reid, Thompson and all the others complicit in this should be canned. Forcing out long-time administrators, having kids lie about being homeless so they can play a game, coaches arrested for trying do do drugs with minors (and those who hired them going unpunished)...and that appears to just be the tip of the iceberg. It is all really sad.

[Anonymous]

What we do know is that this season’s results will have an “asterisk” by it. And the Hayfield name is “stained”, even outside sports b/c the team represents the school, and the admin is in full support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The writing is on the Wall. Hayfield is in it and may win it.

I think Hayfield can be beat. I also think they should be allowed to play. My kids also do not go to Hayfield and I have no sons, so I'm not particularly invested in HS football. I do love the sport though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What we do know is that this season’s results will have an “asterisk” by it. And the Hayfield name is “stained”, even outside sports b/c the team represents the school, and the admin is in full support.

Ok. *shrug*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The writing is on the Wall. Hayfield is in it and may win it.

I think Hayfield can be beat. I also think they should be allowed to play. My kids also do not go to Hayfield and I have no sons, so I'm not particularly invested in HS football. I do love the sport though.

Separately asked- so apart from whether Hayfield did anything and just from baseline position- do you believe there should be governing rules for high school football teams? Should there be rules to govern the conduct of coaches, administrators and players? And yes to those questions, do you believe decisions from those rules should be followed?

[FrankWinston]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What we do know is that this season’s results will have an “asterisk” by it. And the Hayfield name is “stained”, even outside sports b/c the team represents the school, and the admin is in full support.

Ok. *shrug*

And this is the real problem in all of this...the "adults" at Hayfield just don't care about what has gone down, they just care about living out their lives through their kids' performance on a field because they've never accomplished anything of consequence on their own. What terrible examples they are setting for the kids at the school. Clearly it is a generational issue...the adults were raised wrong and now they're raising their kids wrong, teaching them it is ok to cheat, break the rules etc. It is really sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The writing is on the Wall. Hayfield is in it and may win it.

I think Hayfield can be beat. I also think they should be allowed to play. My kids also do not go to Hayfield and I have no sons, so I'm not particularly invested in HS football. I do love the sport though.

Separately asked- so apart from whether Hayfield did anything and just from baseline position- do you believe there should be governing rules for high school football teams? Should there be rules to govern the conduct of coaches, administrators and players? And yes to those questions, do you believe decisions from those rules should be followed?

Yes, of course there should be rules for high school football teams to keep things fair and safe, but those rules need to be clear and not vague. And they should apply to everyone, not just some schools. Coaches, administrators, and players should have to adhere to the rules. If there’s a question about whether someone followed the rules, there needs to be solid proof, not just assumptions, opinions, or the appearance of rule-breaking. Comments in an article or from parents is not proof. Investigations should be had. Punishing someone without facts to back it up isn’t right and defeats the purpose of having rules in the first place.

[Anonymous]

1. Narrow the number of playoff participants. A 3-7 team should not even sniff the playoffs.

2. If you're scared, forfeit.

3. Powerhouse teams come and go. Nobody wet their pants before.

4. Ballers ball. Whiners whine.

5. Winners win. Losers retreat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The writing is on the Wall. Hayfield is in it and may win it.

Who cares? It's just a high school football game. It doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. They can win and all the players can move to wherever but next year, they won't be playing for a championship and the school's reputation will still be in the dirt then and for years to come.