t-and-f: Penn Problem
Netters: The Pennsylvania case cited by Walt Murphy sounds at this slkight distance across the Delaware as a case of a clash of egos. It is always possible that more is involved than was contained in the Inquirer story, but, on the surface, it does appear as "much ado about nothing." One would think that the coaches would be happy to have a talented runner who trains year-around and is always in shape. What she does during the summer as far as competition is concerned is really none of their business, something school people on all levels seem to have a hard time understanding. Coaches can ask their runners to eschew off-season competition, but that's about all they can do, legally. The takj oif bringing the PIAA into this case is sheer nonsense; a civil cour (while unfortunate) would be another matter. I did not like that part of the story which seemed to say that the school was "worried" about have an ineligible runner on their team after her transfer last year. When are these people going to realize that it is, oince again, none of their business where a student attends school--the US Supreme Court long ago made it clear that this is a parental choice. The "athletic advantage" rule, if it ever got that far, would last about five minutes. It is not only unconstituional, it is revolting. As a judge said to the PIAA in another Pennsylvania matter several years ago, in effect: "Prove to me that the school recruited the athlete and I'll listen to you; otherwise, shut up." Just because high school associations lack the funds to establish an athletic FBI of the type the NCAA has does not give them any license to pass rules that deny students their right---yes, my dear folks, it is a right, not a privilege---to try to make their school's athletic teams. The usual penalty for missing a practice or two is suspension from the next competition and a requirement of daily attendance if the suspension is to be lifted. Practices in individual sports held before the day school stars should be voluntary anyway, particularly if they clash with family vacation times. (Team sports are another matter, but cross-country is not essentially a team sport; the absence of one runner does not affect the training progress of her teammates the way an absent football player might) I can't recall a case of this kind in my long time observing sports in NJ. The only thing CC coaches worry about is whether their charges do some summer running and report if fairly good condition. Obviously, this girl did that. Ed Grant .
Re: t-and-f: Penn Problem
Unknown to the posters, this situation has more to it than is implied in
all of the posts. There is nothing being done by the coaches or the
school administration involved that warrant comments such as are
mentioned below ("ego and stupidity..The young people do not have to
put up with ridiculous rules")
Before one makes statements like this, the complete facts should be
known. However, this forum is not the place to "try" the athlete, the
school, the coaches, or the PIAA, or air the facts. It is, as it should
be, an issue that is and should be dealt with internally within the
confines of the school system. Just like discipline hearing are not
open to the public, internal affairs of a school system's program that
involve students and staff should only be appropriately discussed in
private. If and when it is appropriate, the facts will be released to
the appropriate media by the parties involved. Let the appropriate
administrative body(ies) handle this according to their policies in the
professional manor that they are entitled. In the meantime, please let
us use this forum for what it is intendeddiscusion of current
coaching issues, meet results, and training information. Leave the
other comments for the grocery store tabloids.
"J. Fred Duckett" wrote:
> Ed Grant is absolutely right. What are coaches for -
> hard-nosed polcemen, or educators adding their area of
> taaching to the youngsters in their care. This is
> certainly a major case of ego and stupidity - yes
> stupidity!!. The young people do not have to putup
> with ridiculous rules like these, and if they did, an
> appropriate penalty might be found. These
> concrete-heads on the Hershey staff are merely put-out
> because they are faced with the accomplished fact that
> they have a runner who does not need them. I wish
> that at the small school where I help coach that we
> could find a talent of this strength.
> J. Fred Duckett, Houston, Texas
> --- Ed Grant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Netters:
> >
> >
> > The Pennsylvania case cited by Walt Murphy
> > sounds at this slkight
> > distance across the Delaware as a case of a clash of
> > egos. It is always
> > possible that more is involved than was contained in
> > the Inquirer story,
> > but, on the surface, it does appear as "much ado
> > about nothing."
> >
> > One would think that the coaches would be
> > happy to have a talented
> > runner who trains year-around and is always in
> > shape. What she does during
> > the summer as far as competition is concerned is
> > really none of their
> > business, something school people on all levels seem
> > to have a hard time
> > understanding.
> >
> > Coaches can ask their runners to eschew
> > off-season competition, but
> > that's about all they can do, legally. The takj oif
> > bringing the PIAA into
> > this case is sheer nonsense; a civil cour (while
> > unfortunate) would be
> > another matter.
> >
> > I did not like that part of the story which
> > seemed to say that the
> > school was "worried" about have an ineligible runner
> > on their team after her
> > transfer last year. When are these people going to
> > realize that it is, oince
> > again, none of their business where a student
> > attends school--the US Supreme
> > Court long ago made it clear that this is a parental
> > choice. The "athletic
> > advantage" rule, if it ever got that far, would last
> > about five minutes. It
> > is not only unconstituional, it is revolting.
> > As a judge said to the PIAA in another Pennsylvania
> > matter
> > several years ago, in effect: "Prove to me that the
> > school recruited the
> > athlete and I'll listen to you; otherwise, shut up."
> > Just because high school associations lack the funds
> > to establish an
> > athletic FBI of the type the NCAA has does not give
> > them any license to pass
> > rules that deny students their right---yes, my dear
> > folks, it is a right,
> > not a privilege---to try to make their school's
> > athletic teams.
> >
> >
> > The usual penalty for missing a practice or
> > two is suspension from
> > the next competition and a requirement of daily
> > attendance if the suspension
> > is to be lifted. Practices in individual sports held
> > before the day school
> > stars should be voluntary anyway, particularly if
> > they clash with family
> > vacation times. (Team sports are another matter, but
> > cross-country is not
> > essentially a team sport; the absence of one runner
> > does not affect the
> > training progress of her teammates the way an absent
> > football player might)
> >
> > I can't recall a case of this kind in my
> > long time observing sports
> > in NJ. The only thing CC coaches worry about is
> > whether their charges do
> > some summer running and report if fairly good
> > condition. Obviously, this
> > girl did that.
> >
> >
> > Ed Grant .
> >
>
> _
Re: t-and-f: Penn Problem
> Practices in individual sports held before the day school stars should be voluntary anyway, particularly if they clash with family > vacation times. (Team sports are another matter, but cross-country is not essentially a team sport; the absence of one runner does not affect >the training progress of her teammates the way an absent football player might) Without passing judgement on the attendance requirement for the day before an event, if a team does have this rule then the student needs to abide by it or face the consequences. Team rules are an important part of high school sports, even in individual sports. Teaching kids that there are consequences for violating the rules is very important, even rules that they don't agree with. - Ed Parrot
t-and-f: Penn Problem redux
Netters: I had presumed that Walt Murphy's mnessage about the Pennsykvabia girl who has been suspended from the Herhsey CC team for certain minor violations had gone out on out service, but he informs me it went only to his Eastern track subscribers. So my message probably left a lot of you wondering what it was about The story was in the Philadelphia Inquirer. It concerned a top-flight runner who has run into problems which may wind up in court. They had to do with her missing early practices this CC season (after winning a JO 3K title during the summer, she went with her family on vacation to Ocean City, Md., before school got under way) There were also problems after she had transferred to Hershey---a question of whether the transfer was for "athletic advantage," a mortal sin in HS sports, but settled in her favor by the PIAA. The transfer evidently happened between the indoor and outdoor seasons; she then ran at the infoor HS Nationals in NYC and missed some early March practices for the outdoor season. The case may now wind up in court, though the school wants it heard by the PIAA. Going by what happened here in NJ some years ago in the Harris case (long hair, not missing practice was the problem then) it probably belongs in the Pennsylvania Department of Education division of controversies (presuming they have one as we do in NJ; that;s where the Harris case was settled and the coach lost). I just hope it gets settled before the meat of the season comes along, though she would still be able to run the Footlocker trials in any case. Ed Grant
Re: t-and-f: Penn Problem
Ed Grant is absolutely right. What are coaches for - hard-nosed polcemen, or educators adding their area of taaching to the youngsters in their care. This is certainly a major case of ego and stupidity - yes stupidity!!. The young people do not have to putup with ridiculous rules like these, and if they did, an appropriate penalty might be found. These concrete-heads on the Hershey staff are merely put-out because they are faced with the accomplished fact that they have a runner who does not need them. I wish that at the small school where I help coach that we could find a talent of this strength. J. Fred Duckett, Houston, Texas --- Ed Grant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Netters: > > > The Pennsylvania case cited by Walt Murphy > sounds at this slkight > distance across the Delaware as a case of a clash of > egos. It is always > possible that more is involved than was contained in > the Inquirer story, > but, on the surface, it does appear as "much ado > about nothing." > > One would think that the coaches would be > happy to have a talented > runner who trains year-around and is always in > shape. What she does during > the summer as far as competition is concerned is > really none of their > business, something school people on all levels seem > to have a hard time > understanding. > > Coaches can ask their runners to eschew > off-season competition, but > that's about all they can do, legally. The takj oif > bringing the PIAA into > this case is sheer nonsense; a civil cour (while > unfortunate) would be > another matter. > > I did not like that part of the story which > seemed to say that the > school was "worried" about have an ineligible runner > on their team after her > transfer last year. When are these people going to > realize that it is, oince > again, none of their business where a student > attends school--the US Supreme > Court long ago made it clear that this is a parental > choice. The "athletic > advantage" rule, if it ever got that far, would last > about five minutes. It > is not only unconstituional, it is revolting. > As a judge said to the PIAA in another Pennsylvania > matter > several years ago, in effect: "Prove to me that the > school recruited the > athlete and I'll listen to you; otherwise, shut up." > Just because high school associations lack the funds > to establish an > athletic FBI of the type the NCAA has does not give > them any license to pass > rules that deny students their right---yes, my dear > folks, it is a right, > not a privilege---to try to make their school's > athletic teams. > > > The usual penalty for missing a practice or > two is suspension from > the next competition and a requirement of daily > attendance if the suspension > is to be lifted. Practices in individual sports held > before the day school > stars should be voluntary anyway, particularly if > they clash with family > vacation times. (Team sports are another matter, but > cross-country is not > essentially a team sport; the absence of one runner > does not affect the > training progress of her teammates the way an absent > football player might) > > I can't recall a case of this kind in my > long time observing sports > in NJ. The only thing CC coaches worry about is > whether their charges do > some summer running and report if fairly good > condition. Obviously, this > girl did that. > > > Ed Grant . > __ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com
