PullinGuard

No, that's just an example. There are many, many others. Nothing in the rule book says one system can define the other system's boundaries. Fayetteville can't tell LCHS that inside the city limits is not in LCHS's territory, either. Kids inside Coffee County and inside Tullahoma can go to either. Same for the Franklin County section of Tullahoma. 100% their choice, and the territories overlap. Now if you're in both territories, you can't transfer without sitting out a year due to the transfer rule.

That would violate the TSSAA's territory definition/rule. There is no provision for one school board to establish the geographic boundaries of another. The rule very specifically acknowledges the geographic boundaries and bus routes as established by the local school board. By the same token, I don't think Fayetteville can claim the city from LCHS. School territories overlap all the time. Even Riverside, in Fayetteville, overlaps both FHS and LCHS. It's boundary is 20 miles around the school.

I think this is fairly likely, in general. Still, there are significant questions. Number one, the player was ruled eligible before the season (I think all have to be) and then this was ruled on again in September. Seems likely that was due to a complaint. The first time through involves a relatively large volume of players (all transfers), so it's easier to imagine how a mistake could be made there. But, surely, the second time around, presumably after an actual complaint, the home address would be considered in detail (TSSAA would have considered 'territory' independently and in detail, I would think). Why didn't the TSSAA have an issue with it then? I have seen published reference by Childress to a system that they enter the address into to resolve territory issues. Can't imagine why that wouldn't have been used for the September review. If it was used, why did it seemingly generate the 'wrong' answer, acc'd the the TSSAA (now). This all hinges on definition of 'territory'. That's it. It says the territory for a public school is the geographic boundaries and bus routes as defined by the school board. What the definition doesn't do is give any guidance regarding how to proceed when the two listed criteria do not agree. To correctly evaluate that, we'd need to know why the 'bus route' specification is included - what's the intent? Best way to discover that would be to find the legislative council agenda and minutes from whenever that was added to the rules. There is almost always a 'rationale' listed for new proposals. Menees' logic seems to be that if they are in disagreement, bus routes govern. (Does Tullahoma have no 'territory' at all since it has no buses? Is Fayetteville proper out of LCHS's territory since they don't pick up in town? Are either of these applied in practice, and if not, why not?) That could be the original intent, and it very well may not be. Bus routes might have been intended to discriminate between zones within a system - who knows? It does seem likely that the overriding intent of the rule is to not grant immediate eligibility for areas outside the customary and normal area from which the school and system draws students. I think FHS typically has 20-30% of its students who live outside the city limits and that's been the case within the school since it started and within the system for decades, so it's pretty clear the spirit of the rule was satisfied. We are merely trying to tease out the very precise meaning of the definition of 'territory'. Need the history and intent of that definition/rule in order to do that. Does anyone know when the current 'territory' definition appeared in the handbook? That's important in evaluating the intent of the 'bus route' specification and how it relates and interacts with the 'geographic boundary' specification.

If the TSSAA declares today that FHS has been eliminated from the playoffs, they are 100% in contempt of court and will pay the price for that. I'm fairly certain that not only rules, but laws matter. I don't think you'll get them to publish anything of the sort while the court has specifically ordered them not to. I think what you mean to say is that before the injuction was granted, the TSSAA declared them out of the playoffs. That's quite a distance from saying it applies today, which is what you seem to be attempting to assert.

I find it much more troubling that a game official would have that information at all three or more weeks before it was announced (as opposed to telling it). I do understand that your perspective at the time was different, because you didn’t know it was actually going to happen This eventual circumstance being common knowledge outside of the formal process is especially concerning in the midst of this situation where, as best I can tell, there is not even an assertion that any false or erroneous information was ever supplied to the TSSAA by the school or student. Sort of implies there was no reason for any protracted investigation. ‘Website review’ doesn’t credibly take 3+ weeks Normally, these cases hinge on errors in supplied information. False/incorrect information supplied to the TSSAA by the school and/or that is later corrected. As best I can tell, this is more of a circumstance where the TSSAA now claims that they twice made mistakes in evaluating the case and/or simply changed their minds. Not sure I can recall a case where the ruling was changed upon a third review based on information that was apparently readily available all along.

Not that kind of restraining order. A restraining order can restrict some party from doing pretty much anything the court orders. Many are in domestic situations and restrain a person from being near another. That's just one example. A restraining order could stop someone from selling particular tires, renting an unsafe house, playing loud music, or in this case, declaring a player ineligible.

They can't do that, because they are subject to their own rules, etc. This situation is even comtemplated and dealt with. The actions referred to below are fines, forfeits, etc., like normal. 2019-20 TSSAA Handbook Page 27 June 20, 2019 C. Section 13. If a student is ineligible according to TSSAA rules but is permitted to participate in interscholastic competition contrary to such TSSAA rules but in accordance with the terms of a court restraining order or injunction against his/her school and/or the TSSAA, and that injunction is subsequently voluntarily vacated, stayed, reversed or finally determined by the courts that injunctive relief is not or was not justified or expires without further judicial determination, those actions stipulated in Section 12 and 14 shall be taken.

No, this isn't a restraining order in the sense that you might commonly encounter in domestic situations. The net effect of this restraining order was to rule the player eligible until further ruling.

The coacht FB comment is below. *** TSSAA Football Playoff Possibilities: Division I, Class 1A, Region 5 is not included and will not be until the situation with Fayetteville High is resolved. *** As written, is just refers to 'playoff possibilities'. Makes sense, but doesn't inform at all regarding actual playoff pairings when the time comes. Hear people say the playoffs have to be set by Sat at 10am acc'd to bylaws. Hard to imagine that not happening.

That's my point. I can't imagine it.

Easy to understand why it's missing now. Harder to imagine how they would manage the actual playoff situation if this isn't resolved for a month or something. Just delay the 1A playoffs 2-3 weeks or longer if necessary, omit 1A from the Clinic bowl and try to catch up whevever they can? I'm assuming that a team, by rule, can't even practice if you're not in the playoffs, so all likely or certain 1A playoff teams (or at least region 5 and opponents, region 6?) would have to stop practicing in the meantime?

Where are you seeing the playoff info? I've seen the Nov 13 date, but not so sure that's accurate. It could be, but that is also the very last day it could be held, I think (15 days after yesterday). So, I wonder if that's for sure the date or just the outer limit.

Could be a perfectly legitimate explanation for it all. Will be interesting to hear.

I have no idea.

I have no idea, but it immediately struck me as odd. I don't know the poster, whether his information was true or honest, but it strikes me an an inconceivably lucky guess if he were just making things up.

And the third time, the reviewer was different due to medical leave for Childress. As best I can tell from published reports, there is no claim that any information submitted for any review was ever incorrect.

You seem to know TSSAA history (I don't), and you've said you don't recall them ever losing a court case like this. Have they ever granted an appeal in a relatively high-profile case like this? I think the appeal would have been gone through except for the timing. If they get a 'no' Friday afternoon, there are no avenues left. I can't help but recall that there was a poster on here that said this was all going to happen as far back as Oct 5th - said an official told him. Seems like if the ruling had come down back then (or before), there would have been plenty of time to go through the appeal. Might not have even needed any appeals if the ruling had happened before 2-3 region games.

This is a good point. I do not know one way or the other, but I think this could be critical. If the information presented was incorrect, and the correct information means the player is ineligible, then it's clear from precedent that the kid can and will be ruled retroactively ineligible, and wins will be vacated. That happens all the time. If, OTOH, the information was all correct and the new ruling was due to a change in TSSAA's review and consideration of the situation with no change in the facts, then that is much less common and is a more unusual circumstance. A court might well decide that if all of the information was correct and honest in the first place and the TSSAA declared him eligible based on that information, then he was eligible until their interpretation on the matter changed and was announced. Courts commonly consider relative fault when considering relief. If all information was available at the time of the original clearance, the court may decide it unreasonable to punish Fayetteville for TSSAA's oversight.

I would assume they have to provide addresses, etc, not just say in essence, he's good. I think I've heard reference to transfer forms (in general) having addresses and real detail on them.

Where did you find the 'system-wide' definition? Would like to dig around for more info. Thx

Other issue is that it obviously should have never come to this. All of the people in charge were in charge (or at least involved) when FHS came into existence. I can't believe all of this ground wasn't covered at that time. Yet here we are, 9 years later and the TSSAA makes two opposite decisions in a 6 week period. I don't understand why it seemingly took the TSSAA 9+ years to figure out their own position on the matter. Where did you find the 'system-wide' Question/Answer? More info is always better. Thx.

I don't know. I'm sure they collect taxes to pay for the school. No idea about tuition, etc.

I don't speak for Fayetteville. Told you ealier that I have no association and therefore obviously no knowledge of their position. First question I'd ask is on what basis did Childress rule the kid eligible. One would think the Director would be well versed in this.

Still left with the following problem. Does this all mean that any/all transfer to Tullahoma, or any school without buses are automatically ineligible? No territory whatsoever due to buses? Does it also mean that Fayetteville proper is outside the territory of LCHS? For 30 years, there was no other school whatsoever to attend. Are you saying that it's sensible that all transfers who moved to Fayetteville from 1979 until FHS opened should have been ineligible at the only school within 30 miles due to the bus routes? No buses pick up for LCHS inside Fayetteville. The two examples above have never, ever been treated the way this case has been. Why?

Any that have no buses have no 'territory' under this interpretation and thus all transfer are automatically ineligible, I suppose. Of course that's absurd, because the rule isn't applied that way to those schools. Buses are not considered for Tullahoma transfer eligibility. Pretty obvious that you can't use that rule and sensibly arrive at the conclusion that Tullahoma has no territory whatsoever. But that is exactly what you have to do if you support the TSSAA's logic here.