SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Boys Varsity Soccer Bluffton HS - Eligible for Playoffs?

At the risk of switching sides in the debate, it did offend my sense of fairness that the decision of the Executive Committee was apperantly influenced by a perceived problem with the sport as a whole. As I previously stated in a post on 9/12/08:

"At the risk of attracting the attention of any witty commentators, I'll go ahead and add that Coach Cook has done a remarkable job of instilling discipline and respect in his team and players. I realize that much good can be overshadowed and even undone by one bad incident (and the incident was bad), but soccer2103's point making broad assumptions based on limited facts is valid and admirable.

Lastly, with all due respect to Coach Cook and his acceptance of the penalty, I'm going to go ahead and say unequivocably that the decision by the SCHSL was just wrong. If the SCHSL wants to "send a strong message", then first identify the problem (if any), then tailor the message to address the problem, and then "send a strong message". Mr. Greene's wreckless and ignorant comment that "we have more problems with soccer than any other sport" demonstrate that the action by SCHSL was a knee-jerk reaction that is not based in fact, sound reasoning or any probability that a problem will be remedied."

However, it is well-accepted practice in sports for a league to hold a school or team responsible for the actions of an individual fan, player or coach. The history of disciplinary actions within the NCAA is full of even more punitive examples - and even professional sports leagues have penalized teams for the actions of past coaches or players.

My harsh criticism of Mr. Greene and the Executive Committee aside, at least there was a certain logic to the reasoning. This recent turn of events seems to mean that the Executive Committee intended to maybe send a strong message, kind of.

I think that it would be interesting to know the exact wording of the decision rendered by the Executive Committee. Coach Cook has repeatedly stated (as did the newspaper accounts) that the decision banned the Bluffton squad from all post-season playoffs. Perhaps this is not the case and, as Roger Hazel has apperantly stated, it was the intention of the Executive Committee to simply place Bluffton on probation for 365 days from the date of the infraction (May 6, 2008).

Regardless, its late and I have finished my work for the evening. I am certain that the debate, outrage, sympathy and senseless rants will continue at a more reasonable hour. Until then, kick rocks Coach Chass.

A good debater can switch sides at will.

If it was the intent of the Executive Committee to send a strong message, then they did so by applying the penalty they believed fit the crime, which, in this case, was probation for the team. Regardless of intent, though, they are limited to penalties allowed by the League Constitution, which specify that probation is for one calendar year; therefore, they can say that they placed a penalty to the full extent allowed; extending the punishment beyond that would be illegal by their own governing restrictions regardless of their intent and would only send the message that they can break their own rules whenever they see fit--which would send what message to everyone else?

Changing the wording in the Constitution to a sports season rather than a calendar year--now that's another matter.

Off to kick rocks on my day job,

Chass

Hummmmm.....You guys are missing the point with these long statements about how screwed up the High School league and the people that run are. The point I'M MAKING is there was NO punishment at all for the event that took place in last years playoffs. Bluffton just spared themselves injuries from scrimmages and tournaments that they wouldnt have participated in anyway!! So where's the punishment? There is none! It's amazing to me that the girls from Gilbert get their whole season taking away for a practice and a crime that involves possible jail time goes unpunished!!

P.S. Kick Rocks with No socks with Flip Flops
P.S.S. Coach check out the site www.borntolose.com cause you always seem to have extra time on your hand.

haha

I find it hard to believe that if I were to take my club team and just simply run a soccer practice at a school facility during the "high school" off season my players and I would be banned from play next year. I would probably lose my job (giggle), be made a fool of publicly and feel ashamed simply because I wanted to give kids a place to play a sport...All the while token in the front office would say "NOW THE RULE IS BWACK AND WHITE. YOU SAYIN I DON'T KNOW THE RULES?" Yes, token. That's what I'm saying

Yet these clowns commit an assault on a grown man/official and are about to be allowed to play? Where's Fred Beaver when you need him? He'd hand this post a few blue cards and a 150000 whistle-blows.

Talk about sending a message. Think of what happened to Coach Quinlan last year...now he has to live down there with these thugs amongst him who get better treatment for acting out in a violent manner when they don't get their way.

I'm with Freaky on this one. The punishment (if that's what you call it) doesn't fit the crime. Obviously, that was some serious stuff that went down in last years playoff game. You can hand me all the usual excuses like the player who did it was a senior and is no longer there and remaining players shouldn't be punished, he was one bad apple, the coach has done an admirable job of cleaning up the program, etc.. I also realize the SCHSL rules are the rules - but in this case they are simply screwed up and Bluffton benefits from a circumstance where the playoffs are later than last therefore they squeek in. I would like to think it's just a loophole in language that SCHSL needs to fix so this won't happen again - but I doubt it will be looked at. Once again, I can name several teams in more than one sport that had one illegal practice and they are done for the year where playoffs are concerned. But here is Bluffton after what went down last year getting ready for the playoffs?

A rule may be a rule - but SCHSL it's called an amendment - look into it!

Now to the point, I agree with what most are saying. Yes. the player at fault is no longer there, and yes the program is changing, but they shouldn't be allowed to participate in the playoffs this year. Simply because of what others are saying. It's unfair that you can ban a team for everything because of kids "practicing" or passing the ball around and stuff, but give an open window to a team that had a misfortunate incident involving a physical altercation between a player and an adult during a PLAYOFF game...........

i am out of the loop..was it just one kid or a group of players that were involved? and was the incident with the referee all that took place?

Spared themselves injuries from scrimmages and tournaments they wouldn't have participated in anyway...

Hmm.

Clarification...not making any judgment about what is "right" or "wrong" in this situation...just looking at the logic used to arrive at the conclusions. Nothing wrong with a little thinking as opposed to knee-jerk reactions. Sometimes there's just not a good way to make a wrong situation right for everyone involved.

what seed will they get for their region?