Hayfield Football Coach Fired

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please clarify some details about the fcps investigation. They confirmed residency how? And confirming residency was to prove that the players lived within bounds? And the players likely lied by...?

It sounds like what was done by the Hayfield coach was legal if not ethical. Reid is siding with Hayfield because of legal considerations not because they were fair.

Its not legal or illegal. Recruiting is against the rules of VHSL, which governs FCPS sports and which coaches agree to abide by.

You are talking about eligibility. VHSL was unimpressed with FCPS's eligibility investigation, finding they missed many transfers and did not thoroughly investigate issues. However, the VHSL finding was based on breaking RECRUITING rules and SPORTSMANSHIP principles.

Ok, I'm just trying to make sense of her email and stance. She made it seem like the VHSL policies are ambiguous so that's why what was done was ok. Or am I misinterpreting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please clarify some details about the fcps investigation. They confirmed residency how? And confirming residency was to prove that the players lived within bounds? And the players likely lied by...?

It sounds like what was done by the Hayfield coach was legal if not ethical. Reid is siding with Hayfield because of legal considerations not because they were fair.

Its not legal or illegal. Recruiting is against the rules of VHSL, which governs FCPS sports and which coaches agree to abide by.

You are talking about eligibility. VHSL was unimpressed with FCPS's eligibility investigation, finding they missed many transfers and did not thoroughly investigate issues. However, the VHSL finding was based on breaking RECRUITING rules and SPORTSMANSHIP principles.

Ok, I'm just trying to make sense of her email and stance. She made it seem like the VHSL policies are ambiguous so that's why what was done was ok. Or am I misinterpreting?

Their policies are not at all ambiguous. Her email was very misleading and was meant to be. If you don't know the back story, read the deflector article or the Fairfax Times articles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please clarify some details about the fcps investigation. They confirmed residency how? And confirming residency was to prove that the players lived within bounds? And the players likely lied by...?

It sounds like what was done by the Hayfield coach was legal if not ethical. Reid is siding with Hayfield because of legal considerations not because they were fair.

Its not legal or illegal. Recruiting is against the rules of VHSL, which governs FCPS sports and which coaches agree to abide by.

You are talking about eligibility. VHSL was unimpressed with FCPS's eligibility investigation, finding they missed many transfers and did not thoroughly investigate issues. However, the VHSL finding was based on breaking RECRUITING rules and SPORTSMANSHIP principles.

Sounds like VHSL needs to update and define what exactly intel's 'recruiting'. The issue I say, is in order to recruit somebody they have to actually say they've been recruited, which will never happen in this case. You can define recruiting by saying, they followed Overton to Hayfield. Recruiting would be that Overton persuaded them to come to Hayfield. Which is would be a hailmary in any court room trying to prove with the parents and kids saying otherwise.

PROSELYTIZING is defined in the VHSL rules. No other coach or school seems confused by it.

[Anonymous]

The parents and kids posted all over the place online saying they were going to Hayfield to play for Coach Overton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Court hearing was not a place to present proof. The judge had already read the procedural steps and decided VHSL had not followed their correct process by having one of their three decisions made by one person instead of a three person committee. The hearing was not on the merits whatsoever.

I get that, however they were still allowed to present their findings which they said they did not have. The judge obviously caught VHSL by surprise when he highlighted the procedural mishap. That said, If they didn't have that procedural mishap I would think VHSL would still want to leave with the best case scenario for their ruling, which would be to keep everything in place.

That said, without VHSL interviewing parents or students, it's virtually impossible to prove they were 'recruited', unless they have text messages which I'm 1000% sure they don't have the authority to have.

[Anonymous]

If Reid has the nerve to show up at the game tonight and engage with parents and students on this, I will give her a little credit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Court hearing was not a place to present proof. The judge had already read the procedural steps and decided VHSL had not followed their correct process by having one of their three decisions made by one person instead of a three person committee. The hearing was not on the merits whatsoever.

I get that, however they were still allowed to present their findings which they said they did not have. The judge obviously caught VHSL by surprise when he highlighted the procedural mishap. That said, If they didn't have that procedural mishap I would think VHSL would still want to leave with the best case scenario for their ruling, which would be to keep everything in place.

That said, without VHSL interviewing parents or students, it's virtually impossible to prove they were 'recruited', unless they have text messages which I'm 1000% sure they don't have the authority to have.

Dude, the parents and students admitted online that they were transferring specifically to play football. Thats all the evidence the VHSL needs. Its against their rules to transfer for the purpose of playing for a different team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its lucky for Hayfield that they are playing a low income school that has very low turnout for away games.

They’re playing a school whose boundaries have essentially the same median income and is located less than 3 miles away.

Not exactly a huge trek required.

Edison has significantly more FARMs kids than Hayfield

I think Edison has the recently renovated building however.

Well, so does Justice, but the beautiful campus is half-empty b/c no one wants to attend school there.

I thought FCPS just opened a gleaming new addition there with large windows that overlook the football stadium.

There’s approx 2300 “nobodies” enrolled there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Court hearing was not a place to present proof. The judge had already read the procedural steps and decided VHSL had not followed their correct process by having one of their three decisions made by one person instead of a three person committee. The hearing was not on the merits whatsoever.

I get that, however they were still allowed to present their findings which they said they did not have. The judge obviously caught VHSL by surprise when he highlighted the procedural mishap. That said, If they didn't have that procedural mishap I would think VHSL would still want to leave with the best case scenario for their ruling, which would be to keep everything in place.

That said, without VHSL interviewing parents or students, it's virtually impossible to prove they were 'recruited', unless they have text messages which I'm 1000% sure they don't have the authority to have.

Dude, the parents and students admitted online that they were transferring specifically to play football. Thats all the evidence the VHSL needs. Its against their rules to transfer for the purpose of playing for a different team.

DP, and VHSL suspended them for proselytizing. If the families chose to transfer it's hard to draw a direct line from that to anyone at Hayfield asking people to come. Unless there's further evidence somewhere. All VHSL had in their letter was basically "not stopping it when it first started encouraged other people to come too," which is clearly the truth from the transfer timeline. But is that actually proselytizing?

If there's something stronger, they need to say so. Maybe these court docs have it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Court hearing was not a place to present proof. The judge had already read the procedural steps and decided VHSL had not followed their correct process by having one of their three decisions made by one person instead of a three person committee. The hearing was not on the merits whatsoever.

I get that, however they were still allowed to present their findings which they said they did not have. The judge obviously caught VHSL by surprise when he highlighted the procedural mishap. That said, If they didn't have that procedural mishap I would think VHSL would still want to leave with the best case scenario for their ruling, which would be to keep everything in place.

That said, without VHSL interviewing parents or students, it's virtually impossible to prove they were 'recruited', unless they have text messages which I'm 1000% sure they don't have the authority to have.

Dude, the parents and students admitted online that they were transferring specifically to play football. Thats all the evidence the VHSL needs. Its against their rules to transfer for the purpose of playing for a different team.

That's not correct. Parents never said they were switching schools to play Football.

The comments on Snapchat/Tick Tock by the kids who transferred does not count on a ruling. LOL.

[Anonymous]

VHSL rule says: you can't transfer for the purpose of athletics.

Parent posts video online: we transferred so Larlo can play football for this coach.

VHSL: you just told on yourself, Larlo's dad

It doesn't get more clear-cut than this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Court hearing was not a place to present proof. The judge had already read the procedural steps and decided VHSL had not followed their correct process by having one of their three decisions made by one person instead of a three person committee. The hearing was not on the merits whatsoever.

I get that, however they were still allowed to present their findings which they said they did not have. The judge obviously caught VHSL by surprise when he highlighted the procedural mishap. That said, If they didn't have that procedural mishap I would think VHSL would still want to leave with the best case scenario for their ruling, which would be to keep everything in place.

That said, without VHSL interviewing parents or students, it's virtually impossible to prove they were 'recruited', unless they have text messages which I'm 1000% sure they don't have the authority to have.

Dude, the parents and students admitted online that they were transferring specifically to play football. Thats all the evidence the VHSL needs. Its against their rules to transfer for the purpose of playing for a different team.

That's not correct. Parents never said they were switching schools to play Football.

The comments on Snapchat/Tick Tock by the kids who transferred does not count on a ruling. LOL.

They sure did. All over the place. For one example: There's an interview three parents gave where they all explained that they moved specifically to play football.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Court hearing was not a place to present proof. The judge had already read the procedural steps and decided VHSL had not followed their correct process by having one of their three decisions made by one person instead of a three person committee. The hearing was not on the merits whatsoever.

I get that, however they were still allowed to present their findings which they said they did not have. The judge obviously caught VHSL by surprise when he highlighted the procedural mishap. That said, If they didn't have that procedural mishap I would think VHSL would still want to leave with the best case scenario for their ruling, which would be to keep everything in place.

That said, without VHSL interviewing parents or students, it's virtually impossible to prove they were 'recruited', unless they have text messages which I'm 1000% sure they don't have the authority to have.

Dude, the parents and students admitted online that they were transferring specifically to play football. Thats all the evidence the VHSL needs. Its against their rules to transfer for the purpose of playing for a different team.

That's not correct. Parents never said they were switching schools to play Football.

The comments on Snapchat/Tick Tock by the kids who transferred does not count on a ruling. LOL.

A kid saying he changed schools to play football would absolutely be evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please clarify some details about the fcps investigation. They confirmed residency how? And confirming residency was to prove that the players lived within bounds? And the players likely lied by...?

It sounds like what was done by the Hayfield coach was legal if not ethical. Reid is siding with Hayfield because of legal considerations not because they were fair.

The FCPS investigation is separate from VHSL- meaning, looked at entirely different things so really not relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Court hearing was not a place to present proof. The judge had already read the procedural steps and decided VHSL had not followed their correct process by having one of their three decisions made by one person instead of a three person committee. The hearing was not on the merits whatsoever.

I get that, however they were still allowed to present their findings which they said they did not have. The judge obviously caught VHSL by surprise when he highlighted the procedural mishap. That said, If they didn't have that procedural mishap I would think VHSL would still want to leave with the best case scenario for their ruling, which would be to keep everything in place.

That said, without VHSL interviewing parents or students, it's virtually impossible to prove they were 'recruited', unless they have text messages which I'm 1000% sure they don't have the authority to have.

Dude, the parents and students admitted online that they were transferring specifically to play football. Thats all the evidence the VHSL needs. Its against their rules to transfer for the purpose of playing for a different team.

That's not correct. Parents never said they were switching schools to play Football.

The comments on Snapchat/Tick Tock by the kids who transferred does not count on a ruling. LOL.

A kid saying he changed schools to play football would absolutely be evidence.

Would it be evidence of proselytizing, or of something that could be used to declare the player ineligible? Because they didn't make the latter argument.