Forfiets???? - Page 2

kingsindanger · #21 11-07-2009, 04:46 PM

Wicomico's forfeit victory over Cambridge put them into the playoffs and knocked Rising Sun to 5th. Can anyone here honestly suggest that is fair to Rising Sun, who did nothing wrong?

Here is an another suggestion: Instead of awarding forfeit victories, why couldn't the wins be vacated so they would count as loses for both teams? It seems to me that is the only fair solution or am I missing something?

jtowne-swim · #22 11-07-2009, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingsindanger

Wicomico's forfeit victory over Cambridge put them into the playoffs and knocked Rising Sun to 5th. Can anyone here honestly suggest that is fair to Rising Sun, who did nothing wrong?

Here is an another suggestion: Instead of awarding forfeit victories, why couldn't the wins be vacated so they would count as loses for both teams? It seems to me that is the only fair solution or am I missing something?

Let's roll with that for a second.... what if the score of the game was 21-20? Is that fair to the team that followed the rules?

kingsindanger · #23 11-08-2009, 12:10 AM

First, the score is irrelevant. A win by 1 is the same as a win by 41.

So what should be done about teams that break the rules. The problem is solved by handing out stiffer penalties- including postseason bans. Force teams to double and triple check their rosters and coaches. Require AD’s to be accountable for the grades of the players. In this way, the chances of a team losing a game to a cheating team are greatly reduced.

So what about the team that followed the rules? Of course it wouldn’t be fair if they lost because the other team is using an ineligible player. However, the fact remains they still lost on the field. In my opinion that should not change. Did North East truly deserve a ‘win’ over Joppa last year? Of course they didn’t. The Indians were blown off the field that night and yet they get a paper victory? Bottom line is a loss on the field should stay as a loss on the field.

That brings me back to my original question. In your opinion, is the fact that Wicomico picked up a forfeit victory because of an underage coach fair to Rising Sun, who had nothing to do with the situation? Keep in mind that forfeit is the difference between 4th and 5th place- in or out of the playoffs.

jtowne-swim · #24 11-08-2009, 06:16 PM

It sucks for Rising Sun but Rising sun controlled their fate if they had won more games! Yes it looked like they would coast into the playoffs until this happened. But the fact is that the forfiet is the penelty for breaking rules. It is clearly laid out in the hand book and one knows it up front. Be mad at the teams/individuals that cause these situations to happen.

jtowne-swim · #25 11-08-2009, 06:26 PM

Not to mention this "unearned win" was only worht 9 points in the standings and that would leave Wicomico with 5.70 to Rising Suns 5.68 and still out of the playoffs. SO Rising Sun missed the playoffs on the field too!

fromTS · #26 11-09-2009, 06:52 AM

Joppatowne has an issue last season when they had a kid who lived in Dundalk on thier roster. They kid played for them all season but they were only sanctioned a few games.

jtowne-swim · #27 11-09-2009, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fromTS

Joppatowne has an issue last season when they had a kid who lived in Dundalk on thier roster. They kid played for them all season but they were only sanctioned a few games.

The kid played for them the whole previous season and they forfieted the whole previous season as well as the 3 games he played in that season he was then removed from the roster and sent out of joppatowne.

old school · #28 11-09-2009, 12:01 PM

I think forfeits for using academically ineligible players is an appropriate punishment. Forfeits for residency should be on the school and the student. Take basketball for example. School starts in August. The student attends classes while living out of district but it doesn't become a problem until basketball starts in November. Coaches don't have the resources to investigate every player on the JV and Varsity for residency requirements before the first game. That's something school should look into if there is a suspicion. The student should be suspended from all extra curriculars for at least one calendar year. They and their parents know when they are out of district and they purposely conceal it. Using a player that hasn't practiced the required amount of time to me isn't grounds to forfeit a game. Suspend the coach for two and dock his pay don't punish the kids.

Trip · #29 11-09-2009, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by old school

I think forfeits for using academically ineligible players is an appropriate punishment. Forfeits for residency should be on the school and the student. Take basketball for example. School starts in August. The student attends classes while living out of district but it doesn't become a problem until basketball starts in November. Coaches don't have the resources to investigate every player on the JV and Varsity for residency requirements before the first game. That's something school should look into if there is a suspicion. The student should be suspended from all extra curriculars for at least one calendar year. They and their parents know when they are out of district and they purposely conceal it. Using a player that hasn't practiced the required amount of time to me isn't grounds to forfeit a game. Suspend the coach for two and dock his pay don't punish the kids.

...Not that I necessarily agree with every specific sanction you named BUT I completely agree with what I think you are saying in that game forfeit should not be automatic in all cases and that matters should and can be assessed on the merits of the case.

I would not only say coaches don't have the resources to investigate and keep up with all residency submission of players but do NOT, in my mind, have that responsibility. I feel that is the responsibility of registrars. Players play, coaches coach, and registrars insure kids in schools belong there.

jtowne-swim · #30 11-10-2009, 07:01 PM

Let's add this to the discussion

Quote:

Baltimore, MD - The Maryland Public Secondary Schools Athletic Association (MPSSAA) today issued the following official statement regarding an alleged rules violation by Westlake High School and its effect on the MPSSAA football state tournament.

On Tuesday, November 10, 2009 the MPSSAA was officially informed of an alleged eligibility violation on the Westlake High School football team. In accordance with Maryland State Board of Education Regulation 13A.06.03.05B(2), Charles County Public Schools must conduct a formal hearing within five school days of receipt of the complaint in order to address the allegations and make a determination. That hearing has been scheduled for Monday, November 16, 2009. As a result, the first round of the 3A south regional football playoffs will be conducted as scheduled.

Any further developments will be communicated through MPSSAA.org.

http://www.mpssaa.org/news/release.asp?release_id=286

Why someone waited until today to bring it up baffles me. I think according to the bulliten the game gets played and if Westlake wins the game but is caused to forfiet games then Potomac gets a free pass to the regional finals.

Trip · #31 11-11-2009, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtowne-swim

Let's add this to the discussion

http://www.mpssaa.org/news/release.asp?release_id=286

Why someone waited until today to bring it up baffles me. I think according to the bulliten the game gets played and if Westlake wins the game but is caused to forfiet games then Potomac gets a free pass to the regional finals.

swim, et. al.

The answer as to why someone would wait until now is blatantly obvious; it should really baffle no one and what I and others in the mix down here actually expected to unfold. There is a solid history in the area of disgruntled folks whose team didn't make the playoffs or parent get back against others or folks who don't care for the coaches McDonough brought on who quickly guided McDonough to the playoffs. I told all this was the case in the big PG scandal several years ago and nothing in this area has changed. You may recall the new poster in here just a couple weeks ago with only a couple posts name Westlake and specific students here and on the MD Varsity board. He was the one who proclaimed himself to be a referee who could no longer standby witnessing "The Cheating" and wanted everyone on this board to know what was going on. You may recall that thread was deleted.

I will add that the same allegation of an ineligible player has also been launched against Potomac. It will come out soon that some under the table anonymous person reported recently on a Potomac player. I was told and at this time have no reason to doubt that that Oxon Hill student was already known to Potomac before the season started and did not play. However, his number was supposedly given to another kid and I suspect that this is where the anonymous whistleblower may have gotten his/her wires crossed and reported on who he/she thought was the same Oxon Hill kid from before the beginning of the season. We shall see how it all pans out.

Anyway, As The World Turns, All My Children, The Young and The Restless, The Days of Our Lives --- it all can be a big soap opera at times with ticked off adults....

Just Search for Tomorrow. But do so quickly because we have but One Life To Live.

RedandBlackattack · #32 11-11-2009, 06:45 AM

Trip, you are right on both accounts...

If you read the editorial notes at the end of this article it will explain just what you said... As for who turned them in.... We all know who it was...

http://www.gazette.net/stories/11012...38_32543.shtml

As for Westlake, from what I understand it was the supervisor of athletics from Calvert Co. who called every day for two weeks to find out where the player in question from Westlake surfaced. When it was discovered he re-enrolled at Westlake, PG Athletics had no choice but to report their findings. I'm guessing that Northern HS was finding a way to work their way into playoffs by revealing the ineligible player.

jtowne-swim · #33 11-11-2009, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedandBlackattack

Trip, you are right on both accounts...

If you read the editorial notes at the end of this article it will explain just what you said... As for who turned them in.... We all know who it was...

http://www.gazette.net/stories/11012...38_32543.shtml

As for Westlake, from what I understand it was the supervisor of athletics from Calvert Co. who called every day for two weeks to find out where the player in question from Westlake surfaced. When it was discovered he re-enrolled at Westlake, PG Athletics had no choice but to report their findings. I'm guessing that Northern HS was finding a way to work their way into playoffs by revealing the ineligible player.

If that is the case then Northern didn't do their homework because the Bullitien specifclly deals with this situation. When forfietgate happened and they had the case of the seeding switch they added the bit about when they would finalize or close the playoffs. Which is Monday. Pointing it out on Tuesday only gets Westlake booted but does not replace them. If they knoew about it earlier they should have reported it then! The sour grapes people I hate more then the cheating parties. When you know of a violation your report it that day not wait and see.