battleftbl 42 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 In 1993, Appalachia had a player ejected in the state semi-finals against Rural Retreat. Player was suspended for the state title game against Middlesex Co. The players parents got a court order delieved to Coach Turner stating that the player must start, and play in the football game as normal. The VHSL notified Appalachia that if the player participated that the state title game would be forfeited. The kid played, the other players half-assed it and tanked the game..... Middlesex won 10-6 and thought they'd accomplished something...........The next year Appalachia earned a rematch in the State title game against Middlesex. The Final score was Appalachia 72 Middlesex 7. In this case, the kid started the fight, threw punches and was ejected...a judge still ordered Appalachia to let him play. The kid and his parents cost Appalachia another state title, but it was proven the following year who the real champions were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhs7695 185 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 (edited) There is also talk on WVPreps about the WVSSAC suspending the playoffs until this dispute is settled one way or another. Apparently they reserve the right to do that if they see fit. It would set the precedent for a "black and white" picture, per say, instead of dealing with the possible forfeiture of a state title or all of the "what ifs" that could result from continuing on. I see the benefits of this, but I don't think that 3 other teams should be punished because of the actions of two teams who couldn't keep their composure. Didn't the SSAC do that recently for a cheerleading competition? Edited November 23, 2010 by bhs7695 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhs7695 185 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 Word on WVPreps is that that the injuction was granted and these kids will see the field on Saturday afternoon in the semi-finals. Last time I checked, there was no legitimate source (i.e. Daily Mail, etc.), just someone claiming to know... We'll see how it plays out... EDIT: The title to that thread has now been changed... Official now they are cleared to play against Brooke. This is just flat out WRONG!! UPDATE 11/23/10 @ 3:00 p.m. CHARLESTON, W.Va. (WSAZ) -- A judge has granted a temporary restraining order allowing the four suspended football players from South Charleston to play in Saturday's semi-final game. The players filed a lawsuit Tuesday afternoon asking for a temporary restraining order. The athletes were suspended following a fight at the end of their game against Hurricane High School last Saturday. A bench clearing brawl brought both teams to the field and had to be broken up by police. The four players who were suspended from their next game, the semi-final this Saturday, filed the lawsuit asking which claimed, "As a direct result of the WVSSAC's actions, Plaintiffs have not been afforded the benefit of the on-field determinations to which they were entitled and will not be permitted to play in the upcoming AAA playoff game -- a result that cannot be undone after the upcoming weekend." Judge Carrie Webster granted the temporary restraining order. "The court finds that the Plaintiffs have established that immediate and irreparable harm will result to Plaintiffs before the adverse party may be heard in opposition," the order states. That means the judge feels like it's unfair to punish the students before the case has been heard. The order reverses the suspension of Tyler Harris, Pierria Henry, Trevond Reese and Emerson Gagnon and says they will be allowed to participate in interscholastic athletics until further order of the Court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluefield_Rules 46 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 (edited) What were the injunctions filed for? Something very similar to this, or something completely different?I just know that courts are not fond of interfering when there's a clear, Constitutionally-valid policy in place. There have been injunctions filed for various reasons. One of my favorites occurred during the regional cheerleading competition last December. Tolsia High filed the injunction after they had been docked points for performing an illegal move. The loss of points caused Tolsia to drop in the regional finishing order and thus prevented them from competing at the state tournament. Tolsia argued they were not aware that move in question was illegal. When they were granted the injunction in court the SSAC suspended the "AA" state cheer competition for nearly five months until the issue was resolved. If that pathetic argument can receive an injunction then anything can. Here's a quick wrap-up of the story: http://www.wsaz.com/newswestvirginia/headlines/78891947.html Edited November 23, 2010 by Bluefield_Rules Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PioneerPA 11 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 This certainly makes you appreciate the class displayed by most programs in this state in both victory and defeat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hokie07 11 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 Here are the court documents for anyone who is interested in reading them... Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order: http://media.graytvinc.com/documents/Plfs%27+Motion+for+Temp+Restraining+Order.pdf Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order: http://media.graytvinc.com/documents/Order+Granting+Temp+Restraining+Order.pdf Verified Complaint for Injunctive Relief: http://media.graytvinc.com/documents/Verified+Complaint+for+Injunctive+Relief.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VHSLhelper 571 Author Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 Official now they are cleared to play against Brooke. This is just flat out WRONG!! I disagree 100%. The refs blew it big time. THEY broke the rules, then the STATE broke the rules. Those 4 kids' parents are standing up to the wrong-doers. Now, I'm not saying the kids did nothing wrong, but this is akin to an illegal search. If the kids broke the rules, that doesn't give the authorities the right to do so, too, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hokie07 11 Report Share Posted November 24, 2010 I disagree 100%.The refs blew it big time. THEY broke the rules, then the STATE broke the rules. Those 4 kids' parents are standing up to the wrong-doers. Now, I'm not saying the kids did nothing wrong, but this is akin to an illegal search. If the kids broke the rules, that doesn't give the authorities the right to do so, too, While I agree with you somewhat, I disagree with this for the most part. First and foremost, this should open the eyes to the SSAC, NHSL, whoever, into being able to review video to assist in crucial decisions like this. If they haven't already amended that rule, then I hope they've been working on it since Saturday morning. I am not an advocate of video review when it comes to the spot of the ball, touchdown/no touchdowns, clock issues, etc., but I am for something as serious as this. Secondly, I won't argue that they cannot play legally because, as you said and I agree, the SSAC is allegedly the ones who didn't play by the rules. If true, then the kids should be able to play in the eye of the law. What this does though is put the football coaches, school administration, and even the parents in the spotlight to do what is RIGHT. Regardless of what the court rules, there was a lot of wrong that took place on the football field, and morally, tons of kids are guilty. They have the opportunity to view video tape and teach these kids that there are consequences for their actions, whether or not it be in the eye of the law. No punishment of any kind essentially justifies these kids' actions and proves that SC cares about winning and nothing else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VHSLhelper 571 Author Report Share Posted November 24, 2010 rules can't be amended in 3-4 days... if any football rule is changed, it goes into effect the beginning of the next season. But I agree... if video is available, it should be allowed to be viewed when an altercation happens. BUT, the thing is, even the video "lies". The "rule" says someting like anyone who leaves the bench area to join a fight gets ejected. How can you look at the clip and determine who that applies to, when you already have 11 guys doing that because it happened on a change-of-possession play? Can you pick out the first 11 to cross the sideline? And tell me, for CERTAIN, that the 11th guy went out to play offense? Maybe the 11th off. guy was a lineman sitting on the bench, and by the time he got his helmet on, he was the 16th guy to cross the sideline. "No punishment of any kind"... well, I don't know about that. I never watched the clip close enough to see who did what, or how many shouldn't have been on the field. Personally, I'm not a big fan of the "across the line" thing, because it's human nature to get a better view, and you forget about looking at your feet. The "gawkers" - I have no problem with. The ones that went INTO the action is another story.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hokie07 11 Report Share Posted November 24, 2010 rules can't be amended in 3-4 days... if any football rule is changed, it goes into effect the beginning of the next season. But I agree... if video is available, it should be allowed to be viewed when an altercation happens. BUT, the thing is, even the video "lies". The "rule" says someting like anyone who leaves the bench area to join a fight gets ejected. How can you look at the clip and determine who that applies to, when you already have 11 guys doing that because it happened on a change-of-possession play? Can you pick out the first 11 to cross the sideline? And tell me, for CERTAIN, that the 11th guy went out to play offense? Maybe the 11th off. guy was a lineman sitting on the bench, and by the time he got his helmet on, he was the 16th guy to cross the sideline. "No punishment of any kind"... well, I don't know about that. I never watched the clip close enough to see who did what, or how many shouldn't have been on the field. Personally, I'm not a big fan of the "across the line" thing, because it's human nature to get a better view, and you forget about looking at your feet. The "gawkers" - I have no problem with. The ones that went INTO the action is another story.. I know that rules cannot be changed in 3-4 days. I didn't mean to make it sound as if an amended ruling would take precedent for this week's semi-final games, I was just insinuating that the incorporation of video for these types of situations needs to be done as soon as possible. I apologize for making it sound otherwise. I'm still not claiming that the video can or will prove or disprove anything of this. As you've said, there's a lot of gray area in determining the ruling of ejections, and I understand that much of the reaction is human nature, and many of those players did nothing more than "get a better view," as you put it, and I agree that there really isn't anything wrong with that, but the blatant punches thrown and kicks that you'll see if you watch closely need to be dealt with accordingly. All I'm saying is that the coach, principal, and even parents on BOTH side have the moral obligation to take a closer look and review the film and punish the students as they see fit, aside from the WVSSAC rulings and any interscholastic activity board's process. Just because an "innocent" ruling in the WVSSAC case is a verdict, doesn't mean the kids are not "guilty" and they shouldn't be punished for society's sake. I know that my parents would have beat my ass for acting that way in public, with only very few exceptions. It's a whole 'nother ball game, but the video honestly shows several different opportunities for assault and battery charges if the students and/or parents wanted to take it that far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PioneerPA 11 Report Share Posted November 24, 2010 The part that stands out to me is that #2 for Hurricane, Fletcher, who started throwing punches out in the open...was not listed in the officials report and therefore will receive no sanctioning from the SSAC. If you need any further proof of how flawed the system is, there you go. If they "illegally" viewed video, you would think they would have gotten him, right? No good guys in this...SC's principal and coach should get together, view the film, and discipline those who deserve it. They can have tougher sanctions than the SSAC, and they can impose them. An honest show of good faith by the principal and the head coach would go a long way toward helping resolve this matter. The coach would know who was going out on the field to kneel the ball and who was out there and shouldn't have been. If Messinger has ANY integrity whatsoever, he'll handle it. There are a lot of fine coaches in this state that would do the right thing. I want to find out if Messinger is one or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Report Share Posted November 24, 2010 (edited) Here are the court documents for anyone who is interested in reading them... Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order: http://media.graytvinc.com/documents/Plfs%27+Motion+for+Temp+Restraining+Order.pdf Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order: http://media.graytvinc.com/documents/Order+Granting+Temp+Restraining+Order.pdf Verified Complaint for Injunctive Relief: http://media.graytvinc.com/documents/Verified+Complaint+for+Injunctive+Relief.pdf I may be in the minority here, but after reading the complaints and the order, though I agree with the plaintiff's stance and anger if true, I disagree with granting the temporary restraining order. I am just not fond of the precedent that this sets: if a player gets suspended before a big game, just take it to court and they'll bail you out! Also, suits like these just tie up the court system. It is my opinion that the players/parents did not exhaust their options with the WVSSAC. Third, I think it's manipulation of the whole process granting a TRO. If South Charleston loses Saturday, plaintiffs are going to drop the suit. If SC wins, the suit will not be resolved by the state title game, so the suit will be dropped anyway after the game's played. Now, I'm not saying the kids did nothing wrong, but this is akin to an illegal search. If the kids broke the rules, that doesn't give the authorities the right to do so, too, This isn't even apples and oranges. This is apples and a brick of lead... Edited November 24, 2010 by UVAObserver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Report Share Posted November 24, 2010 No good guys in this...SC's principal and coach should get together, view the film, and discipline those who deserve it. They can have tougher sanctions than the SSAC, and they can impose them. An honest show of good faith by the principal and the head coach would go a long way toward helping resolve this matter. The coach would know who was going out on the field to kneel the ball and who was out there and shouldn't have been. If Messinger has ANY integrity whatsoever, he'll handle it. There are a lot of fine coaches in this state that would do the right thing. I want to find out if Messinger is one or not. Perhaps the best post in the whole thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VHSLhelper 571 Author Report Share Posted November 24, 2010 but the question is... and I think I already know the abswer to this... what kind of time-frame will the school use to apply (any) justice? Don't know if they had classes today or not... don't know if this has to go through "the central office" or not. I think all the kids will end up playing this weekend, and the boards will be swamped, and "some" action will be taken next week. Of course, maybe something happened today, and no one knows about it until the game starts and someon's missing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vatech 10 Report Share Posted November 25, 2010 It's BS! I have no dog in the fight, but it pisses me off seeing this. I don't give two craps, but if you threw a punch, came off the bench, or was ejected. You should not be allowed to the next game. It's your fault for blaming the refs because your butt couldn't control yourself. I have a better idea let’s blame others for the bad decision we made... that will teach our young people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VHSLhelper 571 Author Report Share Posted November 25, 2010 that's the other thing underlying this whole mess... the kid in white that threw the first punch wasn't on either list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.01bb665814ffc257795fe158cb2045c7.png.8a531ac878a82772b21014d7a6167582.png){kind=logo}
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.