Hayfield Football Coach Fired

[Anonymous]

Please, tell us which other schools had 33+ transfers this year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Who else is doing this? Again, if you know and have specifics to your claim, it sounds like VHSL is listening. This might be the time to nail everybody. But so far all anyone gives as proof are a couple of names from decades past.

I mean everybody speeds. Not everyone gets caught. But most people would agree that when you’re going 95mph in a 45moh zone, you alhave broken the rules and should be disciplined!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please, tell us which other schools had 33+ transfers this year?

doesn’t matter how many transfers they had or what year they came. If a team had players that transferred in last year just to play football, they are just as much in violation of the rule.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please, tell us which other schools had 33+ transfers this year?

doesn’t matter how many transfers they had or what year they came. If a team had players that transferred in last year just to play football, they are just as much in violation of the rule.

can you name a single other school where that happened?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Fair or nt fair, Hayfield will likely be targeted due to all the local and national media attention and online social media chatter. The other schools will get a pass four now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please, tell us which other schools had 33+ transfers this year?

doesn’t matter how many transfers they had or what year they came. If a team had players that transferred in last year just to play football, they are just as much in violation of the rule.

Again, you have to be able to prove it. Hayfield has admitted to it, so little outside proof is needed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Who else is doing this? Again, if you know and have specifics to your claim, it sounds like VHSL is listening. This might be the time to nail everybody. But so far all anyone gives as proof are a couple of names from decades past.

I mean everybody speeds. Not everyone gets caught. But most people would agree that when you’re going 95mph in a 45moh zone, you alhave broken the rules and should be disciplined!

Madison is guilty, Battlefield is guilty, Patriot is guilty, Stone Bridge is guilty, South County is even guilty of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Who else is doing this? Again, if you know and have specifics to your claim, it sounds like VHSL is listening. This might be the time to nail everybody. But so far all anyone gives as proof are a couple of names from decades past.

I mean everybody speeds. Not everyone gets caught. But most people would agree that when you’re going 95mph in a 45moh zone, you alhave broken the rules and should be disciplined!

Nobody was going 95. There were just 30 people going 50.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They chose to put a target on themselves. They took the risk to say if schools not getting caught with 1 or 2 kids, they’ll try with 30+.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Who else is doing this? Again, if you know and have specifics to your claim, it sounds like VHSL is listening. This might be the time to nail everybody. But so far all anyone gives as proof are a couple of names from decades past.

I mean everybody speeds. Not everyone gets caught. But most people would agree that when you’re going 95mph in a 45moh zone, you alhave broken the rules and should be disciplined!

Madison is guilty, Battlefield is guilty, Patriot is guilty, Stone Bridge is guilty, South County is even guilty of this.

Westfield is doing it too. And there are a bunch of local basketball programs guilty of this as well.

[Anonymous]

The rule isn't transfer in, the rule is encouraged by school employees. Hayfield has it all over social media- is that true for other schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Who else is doing this? Again, if you know and have specifics to your claim, it sounds like VHSL is listening. This might be the time to nail everybody. But so far all anyone gives as proof are a couple of names from decades past.

I mean everybody speeds. Not everyone gets caught. But most people would agree that when you’re going 95mph in a 45moh zone, you alhave broken the rules and should be disciplined!

Madison is guilty, Battlefield is guilty, Patriot is guilty, Stone Bridge is guilty, South County is even guilty of this.

If you know specifics, then go and report. You have to be able to prove it. Hayfield has admitted to it, so VHSL could pick it up. These other schools have not admitted it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Who else is doing this? Again, if you know and have specifics to your claim, it sounds like VHSL is listening. This might be the time to nail everybody. But so far all anyone gives as proof are a couple of names from decades past.

I mean everybody speeds. Not everyone gets caught. But most people would agree that when you’re going 95mph in a 45moh zone, you alhave broken the rules and should be disciplined!

Madison is guilty, Battlefield is guilty, Patriot is guilty, Stone Bridge is guilty, South County is even guilty of this.

Westfield is doing it too. And there are a bunch of local basketball programs guilty of this as well.

Goodness! All these schools had 30+ football tranfers this year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They chose to put a target on themselves. They took the risk to say if schools not getting caught with 1 or 2 kids, they’ll try with 30+.

Given everything just available for public eyes to read and see posted on social media, proof was overflowing for VHSL. Now just imagine if there is even more that public didn’t see, but was turned over to VHSL. Not enough people understood the rules to keep their mouths shut- they just kept posting more and more. As you increase the numbers of who are involved, increase the odds to mess up and a lot did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Who else is doing this? Again, if you know and have specifics to your claim, it sounds like VHSL is listening. This might be the time to nail everybody. But so far all anyone gives as proof are a couple of names from decades past.

I mean everybody speeds. Not everyone gets caught. But most people would agree that when you’re going 95mph in a 45moh zone, you alhave broken the rules and should be disciplined!

Madison is guilty, Battlefield is guilty, Patriot is guilty, Stone Bridge is guilty, South County is even guilty of this.

And Freedom was guilty the past 4 years. The coaching staff thought they had it all figured out and instead of doing 2-3 in his first year at Hayfield, he could get away with doing 10x that. Thus here we are…