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.
