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

Well put Cnfan....

Soccermom

soccermom- what would you have done if you were the one to find out that WA has violated the rule? just let it slide? i sure hope not. when i commented on cheating, i wasnt attacking the coach personally. ok, if you dont like the word cheat, let me replace it with "break the rules". yes, it was an honest mistake. i have no doubt that the coach (or any coach, for that matter) would have done the same thing if he realized the potential consequences. like someone said earlier, would he have broken the rule if he knew about it? most likely not. should he have known about it? absolutely. you cannot argue the fact that the presense of 8th grade players on the roster and sitting on the bench is in violation of the rule. also, can any rule really be interpretted? or do people just search for technicallities in order to make it go their own way? i really want to know. its not a retorical question.
also, observer and i are two different people. dont merge our arguements into one. yes, i see that you are very confused.

slm26 - I really did not intend to get into an argument with you, so my apologies if I came off that way...but I do want to answer your questions...

1)What would you have done if you were the one to find out that WA has violated the rule? just let it slide? i sure hope not.

Since this was a situation that did not have any impact on the game - I probably would have said something to the coach so that he could have had the opportunity to address it with the appropriate officials. The way I see the situation, it was more of a "tattle tail mentality" but that's my opinion, no one elses.

2)when i commented on cheating, i wasnt attacking the coach personally. ok, if you dont like the word cheat, let me replace it with "break the rules". yes, it was an honest mistake. i have no doubt that the coach (or any coach, for that matter) would have done the same thing if he realized the potential consequences. like someone said earlier, would he have broken the rule if he knew about it? most likely not. should he have known about it? absolutely. you cannot argue the fact that the presense of 8th grade players on the roster and sitting on the bench is in violation of the rule.

Yes, according to the interpretation of the current rules, you are correct, it was a violation

3)also, can any rule really be interpretted? or do people just search for technicallities in order to make it go their own way? i really want to know. its not a retorical question.

People write rules based on precedent - the appeals process provides a venue to open that rule up to interpretation, amend it if necessary and hopefully provide various levels of punishment. I was not speaking rhetorically either. Based on the many posts here, it's apparent that there is a lot of gray area - or interpretation, if you will. Rules are generally put into place to maintain public order and safety, to protect the individual, and/or to use punishment as a deterrent - in this case, the outcome of this situation is probably never what was intended when the rule was written.

The appeals process gives WA the opportunity to defend itself as related to the rule. However, in my opinion, it is the duty of the high school league to prove that the outcome would have been different if the rule had not been violated; the league also has an obligation to prove that the infraction was detrimental to both teams to uphold that what the rule was designed to prevent. It is also the leagues job to determine the nature and extent of the need to change the existing rule as written. These are all basic law principles.

4)Also, observer and i are two different people. dont merge our arguements into one. yes, i see that you are very confused

Didn't merge comments, simply commented on one vs the other...being confused - no, I was just being facetious.

Soccermom

I have no connection with either school. Obviously West Ashley broke the rules. I don't think that is in question at all. The punishment should be the topic of discussion. I think that if the high school league follows through with this and takes their championship away that they worked for not just this season but for their whole lives, that this will be the biggest travesty SC high school sports history. It isn't the player's fault; the coach should have known the rule. Therfore I think that a fine is appropriate. I believe that probation from next year's playoffs should be the maximum penalty, but WA would probably take that over being stripped of a championship that they rightly earned.

I don't even see how Mauldin could accept this title. I know that I wouldn't. They lost. Who wants to wear a medal around their neck that they didn't earn? What are you going to tell your kids about the state championship that you "won"?

If the high school league follows through with this, hold your heads up high WA. Yall won the game, and if they take your medals away, I would go get some new ones made cause you deserve it.

im not sure if anyone has mentioned this...but would any of this been brought up if West Ashley had of lost?? just wondering...because it just sounds as if someone is jealous that they won!

i don't know how many people remember the C.A. Johnson deal, when they had Jv players sitting on the bench. the players didn't play, but just sitting on the bench in a STATE CHAMPIONSHIP GAME gives the player a ton of expeirence, its different than sitting in the stands. I know from experience that it is. If the 2 girls hadn't been on the roster, and had been in street clothes, the game would be final, and west ashley wouldn'ty have to forfeit. But because they were in uniforms, they had a chance to play, and that is against the rules. Not making West Ashley forfeit would be unfair to the other schools who have been punished for the same reason in other sports.

I thought some of you who are debating the problem with West Ashley might be interested in what the SCHSL Handbook says on the matter. Here is the relevant section (the italics are mine):

Section 15. Ineligible Participants
A. AN INELIGIBLE PLAYER MUST NOT PARTICIPATE IN ANY INTERSCHOLASTIC COMPETITION.
This applies to any level of competition including varsity, junior varsity, junior high, middle school, "B" and any other teams representing a school. The use of an ineligible player will subject a school to suspension, probation and/or fine. Any student 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 .

NOTE: Any student that participates before fulfilling the requirements of a mandated athletic suspension will be declared an ineligible participant.

B. The following penalties will apply when an ineligible student participates:
1. The player will be dropped from the team immediately.
2. All contests in which the ineligible player dressed will be forfeited.
3. All honors or individual points earned will be forfeited.
4. The school will be reprimanded and fined $100.00.
C. If the school knowingly played the ineligible student the Executive Director may suspend the school or program. In lieu of the suspension, the Executive Committee may fine the school $500.00 for each ineligible player and place the sport involved on probation for a period of time not to exceed one calendar year.

It is my impression that WA's appeal is based on the sentence I put in italics.

Is a student dressed in the JV uniform of their school "in the uniform of one of the competing schools"? Suppose the coach tried to sub one of these students during the game - wouldn't the referee object because the JV uniform was different than the varsity uniforms? As I understand it, only the keeper is allowed to wear colors different from the rest of the team.

If it is reasonable that if the ref would prevent a student in a JV uniform from entering the game, then that student cannot be considered "in the uniform". Certainly the reverse is true - when (eligible) JV players are invited to play with the varsity they are given varsity uniforms.

I wish WA good luck with their appeal. I really enjoyed that match, and I hate to see it marred by this very technical problem.

Let's just see what happens...

ddad -- good points, but these were all made yesterday within this thread at 6:15 p.m. by Kevin Heise, SCHSSCA President.

Thanks for your input!

tefs12--

The CAJohnson ruling actually was not about the JV players being on the bench, but about them playing in too many games per week (more than three) when they came to the varsity games in addition to playing their JV games. Basketball is not defined as a "contact sport" and the JV players could legally play, as long as a three games per week (and some maximum number of games per season) guideline was followed. Some of those JV players did play, and they did dress out in varsity uniforms, and score baskets, from what I can tell. For anyone interested, here is a link (I hope this works) to the SC HS Soccer Coaches Assn Forum and an instructive post by Kevin Heise from early March.

http://www.scsoccer.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000168

What we keep straying away from in this discussion is what the SCHSL is trying to do by establishing rules for the participation of 8th graders at the varsity level. Why are these rules in place? The rules for the three contact sports, as I see it, are there solely to protect the younger players from injury. Younger, and presumably smaller, players are more prone to injury in a varsity match. This is a good rule.

How to judge compliance with it is the problem. It seems to me that the SCHSL, in order to avoid any possibility that a JV player might somehow get into a varsity game, decided to define participation in a game as being in the bench area dressed to play. Coaches don't put kids not in uniforms on the court or field. I would be willing to bet that this is where the West Ashley athletic staff made its mistake. To a HS soccer coach, being in a different uniform means not being eligible to play. Uniform means uniform. The two JV players, in addition to being in different uniforms, also had numbers that were already taken by players on the starting squad (one of whom played all 109 minutes and 31 seconds), and thus were doubly unable to take the field. These girls were not going into the game. The West Ashley coach respected the intent of the SCHSL to protect young players, though better judgement should have avoided this mess altogether. The question now is whether or not we through the baby out with the bathwater.

lpaf