Sure, but my rules are designed to tolerate occasional msihaps by having various levels of punishment, and I have documentation of progression so that if they do appeal it, the AP will always side with me. Where govern bodies generally run into trouble is if they have no progression or consistancy then you get into this mess which is a perfect example. Now I agree that allowing NW to paly is the right call, but they still are being unpunished for a rules violation, which is unfair to all of us who are abiding by the rules. Now a better policy would be to say, if you have one violation in x years (3?,5?) then yhe coach receives a fine and a reprimmand. If you have 2 violations in the same time period then the school receives a reprimmand the coach pays a larger fine and the school is banned from postseason. 3 violations the coach is fined, censured (prohibiting from coaching for 1 year) the school is fined and banned form the post season. If any of the players were involved in all 3 incidents then they would be banned from sports for 1 year(you can't claim ignorance if you get caught for something 3 thimes). If a school has excessive violations (what ever number they decide that may be)in all sports, then all sports are banned from postseason for 1 year and the AD gets fined and reprimanded. That way the primary responsibilty falls on the coach, then the AD, then the players. there is room for a mistake to happen and nothing too serious to come of it, but it severly punishes repeat offenders who after one mishap should know better, and are just trying to circuvent the rules. Also since all schools know the policy, and there a gradual increasements of punishments then if someone appeals the punishment the excutive committee should never overturn the punsihment unless there are acts of "favoritism" being doled out by the executive committee and that would be transparent under the rules/ punishments which would end all speculation of favoritism. Now you have a fair equitable system.
