Hayfield Football Coach Fired

[Anonymous]

I wish their could be real live names behind some of these anonymous posts…I bet folks wouldn’t be as free with their fingers (lips) lol

[Anonymous]

My question is who admits the kids into the school. I’m not placing blame but asking a question, the coach only does just that, even if he has people try and attend, do they not go through an admissions process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ohhhhh there it is! Time for the race-baiting. You always pull that out when your arguments fail.

You never answered the question about all the private school and DC kids and where they resided last spring.

You can deny racism/white supremacy all you want, but it is a part of the equation.

LOL. No. There is nothing racist about expecting someone to follow the rules.

Right, he probably could have gotten away with it had he not made the dramatic changes at such scale and in such a short amount of time. There is no correlation between being a successful football coach and having an above average IQ. But, football coaches are more prone to making poor judgments and operating in the ethical gray zone because they are focused on winning and outcomes, and the ones with lower IQs are more susceptible to finding themselves in the situation Overton is currently in.

You’re forgetting about the team mom standoff. The original team mom was the original whistleblower. Her son now gets to make the playoffs at SoCo, so in the end she wins that standoff I guess.

Kid barely even plays lol

She was bootlickin so her son could ride the bench?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My question is who admits the kids into the school. I’m not placing blame but asking a question, the coach only does just that, even if he has people try and attend, do they not go through an admissions process.

It's not admission (they can't really reject anybody who lives in the correct zone). It's registration. Schools have registrars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My question is who admits the kids into the school. I’m not placing blame but asking a question, the coach only does just that, even if he has people try and attend, do they not go through an admissions process.

It's not admission (they can't really reject anybody who lives in the correct zone). It's registration. Schools have registrars.

There is barely verification, but lying on the forms is a crime. I'd like to see the commonwealth's attorney pick this up after the VHSL report

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My question is who admits the kids into the school. I’m not placing blame but asking a question, the coach only does just that, even if he has people try and attend, do they not go through an admissions process.

I’ve been saying along that it’s on the registrar to determine the students eligibility to attend the school. Then it’s the athletic director that determines if they meet age and academic requirements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My question is who admits the kids into the school. I’m not placing blame but asking a question, the coach only does just that, even if he has people try and attend, do they not go through an admissions process.

I’ve been saying along that it’s on the registrar to determine the students eligibility to attend the school. Then it’s the athletic director that determines if they meet age and academic requirements.

If the violation is for recruiting, the residency is not the issue. All the players could have moved and have 100% full single family home residency and could still be a violation of the recruiting rules that someone posted earlier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My question is who admits the kids into the school. I’m not placing blame but asking a question, the coach only does just that, even if he has people try and attend, do they not go through an admissions process.

I’ve been saying along that it’s on the registrar to determine the students eligibility to attend the school. Then it’s the athletic director that determines if they meet age and academic requirements.

When my kid was in 2nd grade our school learned that a student had stretched the truth on residency (I think some family member technically lived in the zone, but the student did not). They were gone within a week.

[Anonymous]

Anyone lying about a child's residency to sneak into Hayfield is legally required to pay fcps tuition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My question is who admits the kids into the school. I’m not placing blame but asking a question, the coach only does just that, even if he has people try and attend, do they not go through an admissions process.

I’ve been saying along that it’s on the registrar to determine the students eligibility to attend the school. Then it’s the athletic director that determines if they meet age and academic requirements.

If the violation is for recruiting, the residency is not the issue. All the players could have moved and have 100% full single family home residency and could still be a violation of the recruiting rules that someone posted earlier.

It’s not fair, if they penalize the school because families moved into the the school zone for their kid to play. That’s unreasonable. Now, if a kids family lied about their address, I can agree with the punishment.

[Anonymous]

If VHSL concern was eligibility, games would be being forfeited. A post season ban suggests this is all about recruiting and whether violated the rules for WHY the players moved to the school- cannot be for athletics, cannot have been asked, cannot be getting special accommodations (transportation or housing, etc.). VHSL will have been looking at the social media posts where kids and families were posting they were moving to school to follow the coach and play sports. The school and families will be trying to find their support to show the posts weren’t what they meant. If any truth to that 7-11 rides or asking people to host players in their homes by coaches or boosters, all of that will be considered.

[Anonymous]

Reposting prior post as it explains what is specifically not allowed. Families can and do move in and out of communities all the time. Rule 27-9-2 is what is not allowed. By way of another example at a different school, found to violate this rule years ago because, among other things, was letting 8th grades dress in school uniforms and be on field during games, etc.

Anonymous wrote:As an interested third party in the Hayfield situation, I don’t think VHSL would be approaching this as “transfer violations”. As we are told by Hayfield insiders, the students have all been cleared. However, I believe the rule that seems like is broken is VHSL 27-9-1 for PROSELYTIZING, and specifically rule 27-9-2 #4 below. I have pasted the entire section if you don’t want to look it up yourselves. This would also be why there would be not forfeiture of games as there are no issues with the individuals, but that Hayfield has broken the letter and spirit of this rule and subject to disciplinary action as deemed appropriate.

27-9-1 PROSELYTIZING RULE-No member school or group of individuals representing the school shall subject a student from another school to undue influence by encouraging him/her to transfer from one school to another for League activities.

27-9-2 Interpretation: The appropriate District Committee shall decide what constitutes undue influence on the basis of the evidence presented in each case. Undue influence has generally been interpreted to mean an act by any person or group connected with the school or not connected with a school to persuade a student to enroll in a school outside the areas in which he/she resides or persuade his/her parents or guardian to move to the areas of another school. Some specific examples of undue influence are:
(1) Being asked to move by a member of the school faculty.
(2) Being asked to move by a booster organization or a member of such an organization.
(3) Being given tuition, free text books, allowance for transportation or consideration not afforded other students, athletic or nonathletic.
(4) Any other evidence that a transfer or enrollment was made because of athletic ability.

27-9-3 Penalty: Any school adjudged guilty of bringing such undue influence to bear upon a student through any individual connected with the school, either directly or indirectly, shall be subject to such disciplinary action as the appropriate District Committee or interDistrict Committee may impose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reposting prior post as it explains what is specifically not allowed. Families can and do move in and out of communities all the time. Rule 27-9-2 is what is not allowed. By way of another example at a different school, found to violate this rule years ago because, among other things, was letting 8th grades dress in school uniforms and be on field during games, etc.

Anonymous wrote:As an interested third party in the Hayfield situation, I don’t think VHSL would be approaching this as “transfer violations”. As we are told by Hayfield insiders, the students have all been cleared. However, I believe the rule that seems like is broken is VHSL 27-9-1 for PROSELYTIZING, and specifically rule 27-9-2 #4 below. I have pasted the entire section if you don’t want to look it up yourselves. This would also be why there would be not forfeiture of games as there are no issues with the individuals, but that Hayfield has broken the letter and spirit of this rule and subject to disciplinary action as deemed appropriate.

27-9-1 PROSELYTIZING RULE-No member school or group of individuals representing the school shall subject a student from another school to undue influence by encouraging him/her to transfer from one school to another for League activities.

27-9-2 Interpretation: The appropriate District Committee shall decide what constitutes undue influence on the basis of the evidence presented in each case. Undue influence has generally been interpreted to mean an act by any person or group connected with the school or not connected with a school to persuade a student to enroll in a school outside the areas in which he/she resides or persuade his/her parents or guardian to move to the areas of another school. Some specific examples of undue influence are:
(1) Being asked to move by a member of the school faculty.
(2) Being asked to move by a booster organization or a member of such an organization.
(3) Being given tuition, free text books, allowance for transportation or consideration not afforded other students, athletic or nonathletic.
(4) Any other evidence that a transfer or enrollment was made because of athletic ability.

27-9-3 Penalty: Any school adjudged guilty of bringing such undue influence to bear upon a student through any individual connected with the school, either directly or indirectly, shall be subject to such disciplinary action as the appropriate District Committee or interDistrict Committee may impose.

In my opinion, this Hayfield season is the epitome of why this PROSELYTIZING rule exists, and again, in my opinion represents one of the major goals of the VHSL, which is 'fair play' between all high schools in Virginia. All high schools are not recruiting, and while some may do it on occasion with a kid or two every year, that is very hard to prove whether why one or two kids have transferred. When a high school, in the first year of a head coach coming to the school, gets ~20 kids from his former (state champion) high school, in addition to 2-3 other transfers from outside the county (private and public), with the majority transferring within a couple months of Hayfield announcing the new coach. If it looks, walks, and talks like a duck - it usually is (i.e if it looks, walks, and talk like recruiting, it usually is), and I am assuming VHSL has further evidence of this and why they are recommending the multi-year ban.

[Anonymous]

It was 4 private school transfers plus 1 from
a DCPS HS. Likely more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting prior post as it explains what is specifically not allowed. Families can and do move in and out of communities all the time. Rule 27-9-2 is what is not allowed. By way of another example at a different school, found to violate this rule years ago because, among other things, was letting 8th grades dress in school uniforms and be on field during games, etc.

Anonymous wrote:As an interested third party in the Hayfield situation, I don’t think VHSL would be approaching this as “transfer violations”. As we are told by Hayfield insiders, the students have all been cleared. However, I believe the rule that seems like is broken is VHSL 27-9-1 for PROSELYTIZING, and specifically rule 27-9-2 #4 below. I have pasted the entire section if you don’t want to look it up yourselves. This would also be why there would be not forfeiture of games as there are no issues with the individuals, but that Hayfield has broken the letter and spirit of this rule and subject to disciplinary action as deemed appropriate.

27-9-1 PROSELYTIZING RULE-No member school or group of individuals representing the school shall subject a student from another school to undue influence by encouraging him/her to transfer from one school to another for League activities.

27-9-2 Interpretation: The appropriate District Committee shall decide what constitutes undue influence on the basis of the evidence presented in each case. Undue influence has generally been interpreted to mean an act by any person or group connected with the school or not connected with a school to persuade a student to enroll in a school outside the areas in which he/she resides or persuade his/her parents or guardian to move to the areas of another school. Some specific examples of undue influence are:
(1) Being asked to move by a member of the school faculty.
(2) Being asked to move by a booster organization or a member of such an organization.
(3) Being given tuition, free text books, allowance for transportation or consideration not afforded other students, athletic or nonathletic.
(4) Any other evidence that a transfer or enrollment was made because of athletic ability.

27-9-3 Penalty: Any school adjudged guilty of bringing such undue influence to bear upon a student through any individual connected with the school, either directly or indirectly, shall be subject to such disciplinary action as the appropriate District Committee or interDistrict Committee may impose.

In my opinion, this Hayfield season is the epitome of why this PROSELYTIZING rule exists, and again, in my opinion represents one of the major goals of the VHSL, which is 'fair play' between all high schools in Virginia. All high schools are not recruiting, and while some may do it on occasion with a kid or two every year, that is very hard to prove whether why one or two kids have transferred. When a high school, in the first year of a head coach coming to the school, gets ~20 kids from his former (state champion) high school, in addition to 2-3 other transfers from outside the county (private and public), with the majority transferring within a couple months of Hayfield announcing the new coach. If it looks, walks, and talks like a duck - it usually is (i.e if it looks, walks, and talk like recruiting, it usually is), and I am assuming VHSL has further evidence of this and why they are recommending the multi-year ban.

Well the problem is that the rule hasn’t been enforced. If you have coaches with teams ranked just as high as Hayfield doing this and those schools aren’t being penalized, it looks like Hayfield is being targeted.