Forfiets????

[jtowne-swim]

2 years ago we had many people outraged at the massive forfiets that such a penelty is "to harsh." At the time most of the schools where playoff contenders. I have not seen or heard anyone saying poor Patuxent or Mervo or Cambridge/SD claiming those kids lost out. Is it the outrage is only reserved for certian schools?

In case anyone was unsure I am in agreement with the penelty for using ineligible players and now coaches.

[j towne]

What happen to csd. Do they have to forfiets some football games.

[jtowne-swim]

first three used underage coaches

[kxh]

Originally Posted by jtowne-swim

2 years ago we had many people outraged at the massive forfiets that such a penelty is "to harsh." At the time most of the schools where playoff contenders. I have not seen or heard anyone saying poor Patuxent or Mervo or Cambridge/SD claiming those kids lost out. Is it the outrage is only reserved for certian schools?

In case anyone was unsure I am in agreement with the penelty for using ineligible players and now coaches.

I was not one of the people who were outraged a couple of years ago. Believe if you cheat you should forfiet. As to the lack of conversation on the board about these forfiets I suspect have to do with two things: I don't believe these forfiets have been as publicized as in the past, and yes as you note, top contenders will always draw more conversation in general.

[Trip]

Originally Posted by jtowne-swim

2 years ago we had many people outraged at the massive forfiets that such a penelty is "to harsh." At the time most of the schools where playoff contenders. I have not seen or heard anyone saying poor Patuxent or Mervo or Cambridge/SD claiming those kids lost out. Is it the outrage is only reserved for certian schools?

In case anyone was unsure I am in agreement with the penelty for using ineligible players and now coaches.

And I do not agree with the blanket forfeit approach. I find the unwillingness or means to assess situations on a case by case basis and rendering appropriate penalty for specific offenses troubling. I've said before that football itself have 5-yard penalties for certain offenses. There are 10-yard penalties for other offenses. There are even 15-yard penalties for yet other offenses. There is no one size fits all penalty in football so I don't think FORFEIT should be the ONLY punishment for a team for infractions like ineligible players or now underage coaches or what have you.

In looking over MPSSAA punishments for say coaches, there are several tiers of punishments for offenses. There is a punishment for the first offense for particular infractions with another punishment for the second offense and even another punishment for the third offense. But when it comes to teams, the ONLY punishment is FORFEIT.

Thinking cognizant humans are capable of assessing things and placing them in proper perspective and thus able to render fair thoughtful judgements. Autopilot FORFEITS is just not the proper answer for me.

[jtowne-swim]

Originally Posted by Trip

And I do not agree with the blanket forfeit approach. I find the unwillingness or means to assess situations on a case by case basis and rendering appropriate penalty for specific offenses troubling. I've said before that football itself have 5-yard penalties for certain offenses. There are 10-yard penalties for other offenses. There are even 15-yard penalties for yet other offenses. There is no one size fits all penalty in football so I don't think FORFEIT should be the ONLY punishment for a team for infractions like ineligible players or now underage coaches or what have you.

In looking over MPSSAA punishments for say coaches, there are several tiers of punishments for offenses. There is a punishment for the first offense for particular infractions with another punishment for the second offense and even another punishment for the third offense. But when it comes to teams, the ONLY punishment is FORFEIT.

Thinking cognizant humans are capable of assessing things and placing them in proper perspective and thus able to render fair thoughtful judgements. Autopilot FORFEITS is just not the proper answer for me.

There are more punishments like bannishment from the playoffs for that sport or worse yet for all sports. It is tiered as well Forfiet happens to be the bottom.

[mdrunning]

Originally Posted by jtowne-swim

There are more punishments like bannishment from the playoffs for that sport or worse yet for all sports. It is tiered as well Forfiet happens to be the bottom.

I think part of the problem with the per-game forfeits that the MPSSAA usually metes out is that not all sports determine playoffs in the same manner. In football (and wrestling, I believe), which uses a points system, two or three forfeited victories is usually enough to sink a team's playoff hopes. But in other sports which use the open tournament, a team could forfeit wins and still qualify for the playoffs, which wouldn't seem to disincentivize bad behavior. I'm not sure what the answer ultimately is because whatever the punishment, it has to be handed out equally across all sports.

[Trip]

Originally Posted by jtowne-swim

There are more punishments like bannishment from the playoffs for that sport or worse yet for all sports. It is tiered as well Forfiet happens to be the bottom.

I think not and believe for teams, forfeit is the first line of punishment while punishment for coaches is tiered. But I will check my source.

[Trip]

Originally Posted by Trip

I think not and believe for teams, forfeit is the first line of punishment while punishment for coaches is tiered. But I will check my source.

Quote from MPSSAA Manual:

Failure to comply with these regulations shall constitute a violation which will result in the following penalties against the MPSSAA member school and either the student, the coach, or both. Depending upon the severity of the violation, more than one penalty may be imposed against the MPSSAA member school, student, and/or coach.

Penalties shall be imposed in the order listed below:

(1) Against a MPSSAA member school:

(a) First—Declare forfeit of all games in which the violation occurred.

(b) Second—Declare the MPSSAA member school ineligible for championship honors for the current school year in the sport in which the violation occurred.

(c) Third—Declare MPSSAA member school on probation for one school year which shall render the school ineligible to compete in any approved State meet or tournament for that year.

(d) Fourth—Impose additional penalties as may seem justified in the particular case considered.

FORFEIT is FIRST...

========================================

(3) Against a coach:

(a) First—Censure.

(b) Second—Declare the coach ineligible to coach a team for the current school year in the sport in which the violation occurred.

(c) Third—Declare the coach ineligible to coach a team in any sport for the current year.

(d) Fourth—Impose additional penalties as may seem justified in the particular case considered.

[jtowne-swim]

Originally Posted by Trip

I think not and believe for teams, forfeit is the first line of punishment while punishment for coaches is tiered. But I will check my source.

Yes, bottom as in start as in the first penalty! You even found the MPSSAA rule quote which proves my point.

If you think Forfieting is to high to start what is a resonable deterent in your opinion? Remember it has to work for ALL sports not just football.

I believe you recomended a case by case basis?

Under what circumstances is forfiet appropriate? If you would like use the PG cases and current cases to deliniate what appropriate punishments?

How do you get around the advantage the offending team had over the team that played by the rules? If you claim as some this player did not make a difference that one didn't how do you quatify that and decide in a fair manner? What do you do in the CSD case or the SEP case?

[golflover0311]

Originally Posted by Trip

And I do not agree with the blanket forfeit approach. I find the unwillingness or means to assess situations on a case by case basis and rendering appropriate penalty for specific offenses troubling. I've said before that football itself have 5-yard penalties for certain offenses. There are 10-yard penalties for other offenses. There are even 15-yard penalties for yet other offenses. There is no one size fits all penalty in football so I don't think FORFEIT should be the ONLY punishment for a team for infractions like ineligible players or now underage coaches or what have you.

In looking over MPSSAA punishments for say coaches, there are several tiers of punishments for offenses. There is a punishment for the first offense for particular infractions with another punishment for the second offense and even another punishment for the third offense. But when it comes to teams, the ONLY punishment is FORFEIT.

Thinking cognizant humans are capable of assessing things and placing them in proper perspective and thus able to render fair thoughtful judgements. Autopilot FORFEITS is just not the proper answer for me.

Basically you have really answered your own question. If they have to only forfeit the games that the inelgible player/players played in, that seems fair to me. Rules are rules. Some are open to interpretation, some are not. Is it fair to the other kids on the team? Probably not but, the kids are not the blame here. If the coach is doing his job then this should have been caught but I personally don't know what the infraction was.

[RW Willy]

TRIP- you said it "cognizant humans" ie. the Head coach. He takes responsibility. He knows the rules. And the Atheletic director. Your tiered responce is a bad comparision. An inadvertent hold is worth 5 yrds. Dicieving the governing body. Forfiet is apprpopriate.

[jtowne-swim]

Originally Posted by RW Willy

TRIP- you said it "cognizant humans" ie. the Head coach. He takes responsibility. He knows the rules. And the Atheletic director. Your tiered responce is a bad comparision. An inadvertent hold is worth 5 yrds. Dicieving the governing body. Forfiet is apprpopriate.

Or defrauding the other opponent.

[Trip]

Originally Posted by jtowne-swim

Yes, bottom as in start as in the first penalty! You even found the MPSSAA rule quote which proves my point.

If you think Forfieting is to high to start what is a resonable deterent in your opinion? Remember it has to work for ALL sports not just football.

I believe you recomended a case by case basis?

Under what circumstances is forfiet appropriate? If you would like use the PG cases and current cases to deliniate what appropriate punishments?

How do you get around the advantage the offending team had over the team that played by the rules? If you claim as some this player did not make a difference that one didn't how do you quatify that and decide in a fair manner? What do you do in the CSD case or the SEP case?

I wouldn't use the term bottom to mean the first but if bottom is first to you then fine. And I don't think that I found and quoted the MPSSAA to prove your point but rather to substantiate my own claim that team FORFEITURE was the "first" sanctioning option considered in every ineligible player case and this I find grossly unwarranted. I reiterate that there should be human intervention to assess matters and render appropriate sanction based on the conditions of the circumstance rather than full autopilot "non-thoughtful acts." FORFEIT very well could be the appropriate sanction. I am not against a team suffering a forfeit IF done with consideration of the facts and circumstances surrounding the infractions.

I can certainly offer some PG cases as examples of my arguments. The case of E. Roosevelt football several years ago where the coach was banned from coaching in PG in my assessment was an overwhelming example of recruiting and falsifying an address to enroll a student-athlete. I have no problem here and I believe Roosevelt was banned from post season play. Here, something was done beyond game forfeit which tells me someone gave thought to the matter. In the Friendly forfeit matter that same year, I know for a fact that some folks as I call on a witch hunt to better their own team status systematically audited the entire Friendly football team roster to discover one kid whose parent had submitted false documents for her son to attend Friendly. The kid had been at Friendly for three years and consistent paper work that showed the kid resided within the Friendly boundary was submitted. I'll add that the kid was a third/fourth string lineman who only saw the field at the end of what were typical Friendly blowout wins. I have many Friendly game films and I recall reviewing one game where that kid came in the game for only three clock run down kneels and Friendly forfeied that game because he stepped in the field for those kneel downs. Folks made the football coach the scapegoat for this ineligible player when the parent submitted false papers that cleared the school registrar -- for three years. Friendly was made to forfeit five or six games that season because of that one kid and folks who wanted their own team in the playoffs after they couldn't beat Friendly on the field.

In a recent case this season, the football coach at Fairmont Heights was suspended for using two ineligile players and the team forfeited two games. In this case, the players were suppose to attend Fairmont Heights BUT were not officially enrolled when they played or participated in off-season workouts with the team. One game was forfeited because the ineligible player worked out during off-season with the team although he didn't play in the forfeited game. Another game was forfeited because he played when he had not completed official enrollment. It was done properly and legally but after the fact -- after the game. Just picture the administrative glitch that allowed a kid to attend a school without completing the official enrollment! How can this happen one can ask? Easily, the kid is allowed to attend classes while parent are allowed time to gather residency proof. Imagine all the registration matters going on in all schools in early September.

What I'm saying is that ineligible player situation can be somewhat unique and not necessarily the cloak and dagger scheme to win at all cost that many only know or think they know. Say the word ineligible player and I guarantee you that a certain picture comes immediately to mind for the vast majority of folks and more often than not, the vast majority are wrong in their surface not knowing the facts thoughts.

[Trip]

Originally Posted by golflover0311

Basically you have really answered your own question. If they have to only forfeit the games that the inelgible player/players played in, that seems fair to me. Rules are rules. Some are open to interpretation, some are not. Is it fair to the other kids on the team? Probably not but, the kids are not the blame here. If the coach is doing his job then this should have been caught but I personally don't know what the infraction was.

I didn't ask a question needing an answer but cited a specific opinion that I feel FORFEIT should not be the automatic sanction for many, if not most MPSSAA rule violations with respect to players. And my argument is not just with football. Sure "Rules are Rules" but that does not mean one penalty fits all has to be for violations of the rules. You are talking about interpretation of the rules while the discussion is about punishment for violating rules. I agree that the kids are not to blame but I also will not cast down that it's the coach's fault if he is doing his job. Coaches coach!!! They should not have to be in the business of the school registrar. If a kid is on a school enrollment roster than I think it's very reasonable for any coach or teacher to reasonably assume that the student is properly registered. It's the registrar to whom the parents submit residency documentation; not teachers, coaches, or cafeteria workers.

In the Fairmont Height matter I previously addressed, I failed to state that a kid was properly enrolled in the school but was ruled ineligible for the game played because he had not practiced for at least 10-days after officially enrolled. Recall the big controversy around here when Aleaze was spotted working out with Dunbar during the summer but wasn't officially enrolled... I'm telling you that kids all over PG work out all summer with players (teams) they know or where convenient for them.

So one forfeit, the first game of the season, for working out with team during off-season and not enrolled. Another forfeit for playing in the second game without practices for 10-days after enrollment when he had practiced with the team all the while. And a coach suspended for the season a couple games into the year.

[Trip]

Originally Posted by RW Willy

TRIP- you said it "cognizant humans" ie. the Head coach. He takes responsibility. He knows the rules. And the Atheletic director. Your tiered responce is a bad comparision. An inadvertent hold is worth 5 yrds. Dicieving the governing body. Forfiet is apprpopriate.

The coach takes responsibility things that fall in his area OF COACHING. If he uses an ineligible player in the example I cited where the player has not practiced for the required 10-days for playing in a game, then fine. But it should not be on the coach to be the school registrar and confirm residency. If a registrar enroll a student then I thinks it's reasonale for the coaches to get the student on his team and not have to confirm residency again. Now should something come up that would cause the coach to question a player's residency then he has a responsibility to raise the matter with the registrar.

Will, I don't think there is a football foul called inadvertent hold so I'm not sure of your point there unless you mean face mask...

Anyway, deceiving a governing body by a coach is one thing. The same act done by parents with falsified documents that a reasonable person could accept as legit is all together a different matter and should be treated differently in my opinion.

[winsomelosesome]

The biggest injustice w/ the forfeits, in my opinion, goes to the teams that beat the violating team and end up losing points (and/or the opportunity to gain points) for the victory throughout the season. I believe that some teams have lost playoff spots when the forfeiting team's retroactive losses impacted point totals toward playoff eligibility. This is an especially big problem when the sanctionable offense isn't discovered until the season is over or nearly over, and its impact is particularly disproportionate on teams that are in regions with playoff contenders from 3 or more counties.

[jtowne-swim]

Originally Posted by Trip

I wouldn't use the term bottom to mean the first but if bottom is first to you then fine. And I don't think that I found and quoted the MPSSAA to prove your point but rather to substantiate my own claim that team FORFEITURE was the "first" sanctioning option considered in every ineligible player case and this I find grossly unwarranted. I reiterate that there should be human intervention to assess matters and render appropriate sanction based on the conditions of the circumstance rather than full autopilot "non-thoughtful acts." FORFEIT very well could be the appropriate sanction. I am not against a team suffering a forfeit IF done with consideration of the facts and circumstances surrounding the infractions.

I can certainly offer some PG cases as examples of my arguments. The case of E. Roosevelt football several years ago where the coach was banned from coaching in PG in my assessment was an overwhelming example of recruiting and falsifying an address to enroll a student-athlete. I have no problem here and I believe Roosevelt was banned from post season play. Here, something was done beyond game forfeit which tells me someone gave thought to the matter. In the Friendly forfeit matter that same year, I know for a fact that some folks as I call on a witch hunt to better their own team status systematically audited the entire Friendly football team roster to discover one kid whose parent had submitted false documents for her son to attend Friendly. The kid had been at Friendly for three years and consistent paper work that showed the kid resided within the Friendly boundary was submitted. I'll add that the kid was a third/fourth string lineman who only saw the field at the end of what were typical Friendly blowout wins. I have many Friendly game films and I recall reviewing one game where that kid came in the game for only three clock run down kneels and Friendly forfeied that game because he stepped in the field for those kneel downs. Folks made the football coach the scapegoat for this ineligible player when the parent submitted false papers that cleared the school registrar -- for three years. Friendly was made to forfeit five or six games that season because of that one kid and folks who wanted their own team in the playoffs after they couldn't beat Friendly on the field.

In a recent case this season, the football coach at Fairmont Heights was suspended for using two ineligile players and the team forfeited two games. In this case, the players were suppose to attend Fairmont Heights BUT were not officially enrolled when they played or participated in off-season workouts with the team. One game was forfeited because the ineligible player worked out during off-season with the team although he didn't play in the forfeited game. Another game was forfeited because he played when he had not completed official enrollment. It was done properly and legally but after the fact -- after the game. Just picture the administrative glitch that allowed a kid to attend a school without completing the official enrollment! How can this happen one can ask? Easily, the kid is allowed to attend classes while parent are allowed time to gather residency proof. Imagine all the registration matters going on in all schools in early September.

What I'm saying is that ineligible player situation can be somewhat unique and not necessarily the cloak and dagger scheme to win at all cost that many only know or think they know. Say the word ineligible player and I guarantee you that a certain picture comes immediately to mind for the vast majority of folks and more often than not, the vast majority are wrong in their surface not knowing the facts thoughts.

To an extent I agree with you. I wish it was possible to be more individual but let us consider the facts of the Friendly case....What if instead of it being a 3/4 string player it was the starting Running Back/Kick Return Specialist? With otherwise the SAME reason. What should the consequence be. I agree it sucks when the kid/parents lie. It even sucks more when someone uses it as a way to win instead of pointing it out as soon as they know. What should the penelty be is my question for this. Keeping in mind it needs to work in all sports and be a real deterent.

[jtowne-swim]

Originally Posted by Trip

I didn't ask a question needing an answer but cited a specific opinion that I feel FORFEIT should not be the automatic sanction for many, if not most MPSSAA rule violations with respect to players. And my argument is not just with football. Sure "Rules are Rules" but that does not mean one penalty fits all has to be for violations of the rules. You are talking about interpretation of the rules while the discussion is about punishment for violating rules. I agree that the kids are not to blame but I also will not cast down that it's the coach's fault if he is doing his job. Coaches coach!!! They should not have to be in the business of the school registrar. If a kid is on a school enrollment roster than I think it's very reasonable for any coach or teacher to reasonably assume that the student is properly registered. It's the registrar to whom the parents submit residency documentation; not teachers, coaches, or cafeteria workers.

In the Fairmont Height matter I previously addressed, I failed to state that a kid was properly enrolled in the school but was ruled ineligible for the game played because he had not practiced for at least 10-days after officially enrolled. Recall the big controversy around here when Aleaze was spotted working out with Dunbar during the summer but wasn't officially enrolled... I'm telling you that kids all over PG work out all summer with players (teams) they know or where convenient for them.

So one forfeit, the first game of the season, for working out with team during off-season and not enrolled. Another forfeit for playing in the second game without practices for 10-days after enrollment when he had practiced with the team all the while. And a coach suspended for the season a couple games into the year.

OK the situation you give is very odd. The coach is not the registrar but it is a school effort. Many counties are requiring a utility bill from the last 30 days to head off these problems. That said the 10 day rule is a solid rule in the rule book. The practicing when not enrolled at the school is kind of a no brainer. This might be one of the not so well thought out consequences of pre-season conditioning. As far as enrolling in school yes lots of kids are enrolling but you should not be waiting until August to enroll or after the first day of school which was early in PG this year if I remember. The registrar is a 12 month position.

[jtowne-swim]

Originally Posted by Trip

The coach takes responsibility things that fall in his area OF COACHING. If he uses an ineligible player in the example I cited where the player has not practiced for the required 10-days for playing in a game, then fine. But it should not be on the coach to be the school registrar and confirm residency. If a registrar enroll a student then I thinks it's reasonale for the coaches to get the student on his team and not have to confirm residency again. Now should something come up that would cause the coach to question a player's residency then he has a responsibility to raise the matter with the registrar.

Will, I don't think there is a football foul called inadvertent hold so I'm not sure of your point there unless you mean face mask...

Anyway, deceiving a governing body by a coach is one thing. The same act done by parents with falsified documents that a reasonable person could accept as legit is all together a different matter and should be treated differently in my opinion.

Is a forfiet punishing the coach? Censure is a coach's punishment.