SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Girls Varsity Soccer Does West Ashley have to forfeit?

okay maybe i've missed this or something....but i've followed a lot of the stuff about the stripping of the championship....i'm just wondering why nothing about the two failing players was in the news? being two starters (and one being the deciding goal-scorer) and playing illegally throughout the season and especially in the playoffs, i don't see why they're not a bigger deal than the 8th graders...please correct me if i'm wrong, as i may not have all the facts straight

No failing players.

I have been reading and listening to this thread rather than writing for the most part but feel I should clarify at this point that there are no allegations of academic ineligibility according to everyone I have spoken with. That particularly hateful rumor was floated by mhssoc (I wonder what that could stand for) and echoed vaguely once early on in the thread. I was told that academic eligibility was checked closely and no problems found. No one is talking about it because it didn't exist. If someone has evidence to the contrary please present it. Otherwise, please stop trying to hurt the innocent further.

lpaf

Agreed. I would think with all the uproar, the SCHSL has confirmed all eligibility or they would have said something.

i read that editorial by ken burger of the post and courier that kyle posted. i totally agree with what he said. those girls worked hard all year and overcame adversity two win a second state championship in the schools third year of existence. they shouldnt be punished cuz their coach screwed up. those jv players had NO effect on the game whatsoever. i think that its ridiculous that those girls may have their championship stripped because of technicality. now if those two players had played, or even stepped on the field for that matter, i could understand the actions taken but this is ludicris. they shouldnt be stripped, they should possibly fined or put on probation.

I don't think that it was a "hateful rumor" in the least. Yes, I am a Mauldin fan, but as I said earlier, I heard it before the game had even started, so it wasn't a rumor started out of spite for the loss. All mhssoc said was that they heard the same thing, and wanted to know whether or not it was true. (Good job on decoding that name by the way.) I guess that we have an answer now.

I understand what everyone is saying here. Technically the 2 girls did not play during the game. But, if they warmed up for the game with the rest of the team, if they were directly interacting with the players that did play in the game, if they were giving encouragement to the girls that played the game during the player introductions, if they were communicating to the players as they were substituting on and off the field, if they were sitting on the bench and rooting for their teamates as they were running up and down the field...THEN THEY WERE PLAYING IN THE GAME !!!!

I'm only active in the Boy's side of the game, but I couldn't help but get involved in this controversy because the notion being passed back and forth is totally against what we preach to our kids(at least the boys) as they grow up in soccer and some have to face the fact that they play the bench. Notice I said "play" the bench not "sit on" the bench.

Since when have we said that the only players on the team are those that play minutes on the field. That's what soccer is all about. Using the logic that I see everyone throwing out here, we should only award medals to those players that had playing time out on the field... and everyone else needs to go home with nothing but the thought that they sat on the bench of the championship team.

I agree with Sweeps. Every player on your team has an impact on the game, regardless of whether or not they have playing time. If only for the intimidation factor of having a decent amount of subs... this can be enough to put a discouraging thought into the heads of the opposing team. Yes, I know, only 11 can play at once, but they're all on one team.

I agree that the punishment is harsh. It sucks for the players who gave so much for what sounds like a historical match-up (sorry I missed it). But the rule is the rule. And if the coach has been coaching for very long, he would know that you can't dress up J.V. players for Varsity matches unless they are in high school. They go over this at the beginning of every year in our coaches refresher meetings on the new rules.

I can't agree with the punishment, but if we let this slide then the saying my student's live by will be made true...
"It ain't wrong unless you get caught!"

Well put, y'all.

soccermom- i'm not completely sure but i have a feeling the person who initially reported the incident probably did so because they had these wacky things called morals.

do you let someone cheat just because them doing so isnt hurting you in any way? No. You (or most people) dont tolerate cheating because it shows disrespect for those who have played by the rules.

also, i think you're wrong in saying that "The rule is obvious to prevent players from PLAYING". you are inferring what you think the intent of the rule is when the rule is not open to interpretation.

Shame on you, Mr. Matthews! The recent string of zero tolerance policies being enforced in our public schools is sending the wrong message to our children. Whatever happened to adults, educators, judges, community leaders, etc. using good judgment and discretion when making decisions that affect people, particularly young people who rely on us for guidance and a proper example. You read about a school principal expelling an elementary school child because the child's parent packed a plastic knife in the kid's lunch to spread peanut butter on their sandwich during lunch. You stand amazed, waiting for further details to justify such a harsh reaction, and the only explanation offered is "we have a zero tolerance policy against weapons". Apparently, there is also a zero tolerance policy against common sense.

According to The Post and Courier, the rules state..."Any player in the uniform of one of the competing schools and permitted in the bench area is considered as having participated in the game or scrimmage."

Mr. Matthews seems to be willing to overlook the difference between JV and Varsity uniforms in order to fit this situation into his zero tolerance model. However, let's give him the benefit of the doubt and allow that these two middle school players, who were given the opportunity of a little self esteem boost by being listed on the PA announcer's roster and introduced with the team, were technically in violation of High School League doctrine. What is the best course of action?

Again quoting the Post and Courier's account of the rules..."The use of an ineligible player will subject the school to suspension, probation and/or fine."

If this is indeed accurate, then it appears that choices were available to Mr. Matthews in dealing with these "high crimes". I am sure that these choices were made available because someone had enough sense at one time to realize that the intent behind an action is often as important as the action itself. I have not heard anyone make the ridiculous claim that these two 8th graders were on the sidelines in order to give their team an unfair advantage over the opposition. I have not heard that this was common practice by this team and they had been properly warned previously. Perhaps probation would have sent a message that the rules will be enforced, but the adults responsible for maintaining a level playing field for all high school athletes have enough common sense to react and behave in a manner that is at least as responsible as we expect from our coaches and young athletes!