Fayetteville to forfeit 6 wins

[CaptainJackRackam]

5 minutes ago, Crock1615 said:

I guess we are to assume that the BOC decided the time the whitwell player would be ineligible was zero games.  

But thank you for answering my question. Your answer definitely gives one something to think about. 
Wasn’t trying to interrupt the topic of Fayetteville but trying to figure out which rules are more at the top of the TSSAA list than others.

 Again, thanks for the info!

[CaptainJackRackam]

2 minutes ago, Salem said:

He went through the traditional transfer process and was deemed eligible. Someone filed a complaint and the TSSAA investigated and cleared him again with a formal letter on 9/6. In week 10 TSSAA again (third time) revisited the issue and deemed him ineligible. 

So this situation has been investigated 3 times and this last time he’s ruled ineligible? 

[FridayMainEvent]

2 hours ago, proudsupporter said:

There are lots of rumors and opinions out there...Everyone is entitled to their opinions. There are a ton of different school systems that require different bylaws to apply as fairly as possible. I could care less either way if Fayetteville specifically gets in or is booted out. From this point it looks like both sides were wrong to a certain degree. I hate it for the players, but unfortunately in high school sports in the day and age players are subject to adults making bad decisions or not following the rules. I don't know who is wrong here, but rules are set up to keep order...everyone must follow those rules. Teams/schools get in trouble yearly for breaking rules and Fayetteville is no exception. Doesn't matter the situation or record. They could be #1 team in the U.S., but if they broke a rule or didn't follow TSSAA bylaws they are subject to consequences. It happens! Get over it and move on and let the teams that followed the rules or knew the rules get their shot! 

Welcome to Coacht...

[PullinGuard]

2 minutes ago, CaptainJackRackam said:

So this situation has been investigated 3 times and this last time he’s ruled ineligible? 

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.

Edited October 30, 2019 by PullinGuard

[CaptainJackRackam]

3 minutes ago, PullinGuard said:

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 and official told him.  Seems like if the ruling had come down back then, there would have been plenty of time to go through the appeal. 

The last part is why I was asking if this might have been a planned setup. Let them play and win certain games then pull out the anonymous information to investigate for what appears to be the third time!

[PullinGuard]

Just now, CaptainJackRackam said:

The last part is why I was asking if this might have been a planned setup. Let them play and win certain games then pull out the anonymous information to investigate for what appears to be the third time!

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.

[sum1uno]

2 minutes ago, PullinGuard said:

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.

Think that Childress didn’t review entirely or just overlooked issue and maybe new reviewer found something that wasn’t right? 

[CaptainJackRackam]

1 minute ago, PullinGuard said:

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.

I’m just at a loss as to what to say! It really does suck for the team and the player! 
 Don’t won’t to be a conspiracy theorist because I don’t know the whole case but wow...

 Which ever way this situation goes there’s going to be major issues that need to addressed and fixed immediately!

[PullinGuard]

Just now, sum1uno said:

Think that Childress didn’t review entirely or just overlooked issue and maybe new reviewer found something that wasn’t right? 

I have no idea.

[PullinGuard]

4 minutes ago, CaptainJackRackam said:

I’m just at a loss as to what to say! It really does suck for the team and the player! 
 Don’t won’t to be a conspiracy theorist because I don’t know the whole case but wow...

 Which ever way this situation goes there’s going to be major issues that need to addressed and fixed immediately!

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

 

 

Edited October 30, 2019 by PullinGuard

[sum1uno]

Just now, PullinGuard said:

I have no idea.

I agree. Like I said earlier. It’s all speculation and only select few know the entire truth. Not a good situation for either side. 

[CaptainJackRackam]

Just now, PullinGuard said:

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

I agree completely and like everyone else, I’d like to hear how the explanation goes!