|
|
Post by dabe on May 13, 2022 16:08:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by bulldawgsoccer on May 13, 2022 16:33:04 GMT -5
Assistant coach, coached 3 of the girls in club, rules state you’re not allowed to do that. But it does not take away from what the girls accomplished on the field! At the end of the day it’s about the kids, they didn’t cheat, they didn’t have any illegal players it’s just a rule about coaching kids in club and high school.
|
|
|
|
Post by dabe on May 13, 2022 16:44:02 GMT -5
Assistant coach, coached 3 of the girls in club, rules state you’re not allowed to do that. But it does not take away from what the girls accomplished on the field! At the end of the day it’s about the kids, they didn’t cheat, they didn’t have any illegal players it’s just a rule about coaching kids in club and high school. I wonder who reported them. I know of several teams that have had club coaches as their coaches. Players were on both their club roster & HS roster. At the very least they had been trained by the coach. Is this a new rule? Chamblee was the best team this year. Wish people would just let it be. It’s ridiculous to not let the players participate in varsity HS sports for a year. |
|
|
|
Post by ball2futbol on May 13, 2022 17:02:47 GMT -5
I get the rule but seems like this could have been dealt with well ahead of playoffs. Why have kids compete knowing there could be a violation or disqualification. No one can convince me this was a revelation discovered in the last week.
|
|
|
|
Post by bulldawgsoccer on May 13, 2022 17:12:04 GMT -5
From what I hear he has been at Chamblee for like 5 years, no one said anything last year when they were in the playoffs but I guess when you win the state title and have that kind of year its different. Hopefully for girls especially the seniors they win the appeal.
|
|
|
|
Post by fan on May 13, 2022 17:43:07 GMT -5
How awful for the girls. Was the head coach just hoping no one would turn them in? This rule was pretty well known by the coaches and players we've known over the years. Coaches know where their assistants coach and know the clubs where their players play.
|
|
|
|
Post by kidsocceruber on May 13, 2022 18:03:21 GMT -5
The GHSA is an awful organization, it's obvious they don't actually care about the kids.
|
|
|
|
Post by soccerfan30 on May 13, 2022 18:08:26 GMT -5
Assistant coach, coached 3 of the girls in club, rules state you’re not allowed to do that. But it does not take away from what the girls accomplished on the field! At the end of the day it’s about the kids, they didn’t cheat, they didn’t have any illegal players it’s just a rule about coaching kids in club and high school. I wonder who reported them. I know of several teams that have had club coaches as their coaches. Players were on both their club roster & HS roster. At the very least they had been trained by the coach. Is this a new rule? Chamblee was the best team this year. Wish people would just let it be. It’s ridiculous to not let the players participate in varsity HS sports for a year. This is very common, it happens more than people realize. A number of coaches train their HS players in a club setting |
|
|
|
Post by nole95 on May 13, 2022 19:26:29 GMT -5
This is just ridiculous. How is there any undue influence? Not like they figured a loophole to play out of district girls in district. These girls had been in Chamblee feeder schools since elementary. Not sure how that equates to undue anything. And to suspend the girls for something they had no part of us stupid. They were legally playing at the school they should be playing for.
|
|
|
|
Post by soccernoleuk on May 13, 2022 19:48:28 GMT -5
I know soccerfirst is a club coach & HS coach, so I'm interested in their thoughts on this. Personally I don't have an issue with the rule, as long as it is enforced evenly & correctly. I'm unsure why the players are being punished with a 1-year ban, shouldn't that be the punishment for the coach? I know this isn't a new rule as I have been aware of it for over 5 years. The rule is why you typically don't see HS coaches with club teams above U14, unless it is the opposite gender than they coach in HS. I'm thinking the "reasonable institutional control" is because the school should know if their coaches are coaching club, and if they potentially have any of the school players on their current teams. Is it really hard to follow a flow chart on this... - HS coach, do you coach club? No, you're good to go. - If yes, do you coach high school age kids of the same gender you will coach here at school? No, you're good to go. - If yes, please provide a roster of your club team. If any of your potential HS players are on your team, sorry you cannot coach here in HS. Whether you agree with the rule or not, it has been there for a while and all coaches, and administrators are or should be well aware of it. Like just about everyone else, I'm not sure why it took until a week after Championships to uncover this. It should have been known about months ago and dealt with a long time ago. |
|
|
|
Post by Oceanready on May 13, 2022 20:22:17 GMT -5
Got a chance to see them play during the season and they are such a good team that worked hard. I hope they win their appeal.
|
|
|
|
Post by dabe on May 13, 2022 20:25:21 GMT -5
This is just ridiculous. How is there any undue influence? Not like they figured a loophole to play out of district girls in district. These girls had been in Chamblee feeder schools since elementary. Not sure how that equates to undue anything. And to suspend the girls for something they had no part of us stupid. They were legally playing at the school they should be playing for. Does anyone know if the girls are freshman? If they are then the feeder school argument would make since. But just because they live in the district doesn't necessarily mean they are eligible to play with Chamblee (if they changed schools they have to wait a semester). Chamblee being a charter may also change things since technically any kid in DeKalb lives "in the district". I agree that the girls should not be punished for their coaches mistakes. I think the whole thing should be left alone. I just don't quite get how being at a feeder school changes anything. |
|
|
|
Post by justreading on May 13, 2022 22:20:02 GMT -5
It is soul crushing for the girls, I get it. But too many schools/clubs/girls do follow the rules as inconvienent as it is. We lost one of our best community coaches bc he started coaching older girls at club. It impacts what teams girls in clubs get picked for too for those that do follow the rules.
Change the rule or enforce the rule across the board. I think Cub coaches should only be community coaches for the opposite sex that they coach in club. it eliminates the grey area.
|
|
|
|
Post by nole95 on May 14, 2022 6:45:25 GMT -5
I somewhat understand the rule, but why are three girls being punished by having to sit out a year? As far as we know, they did nothing wrong. They were legally able to attend that school, so it is not like this coach recruited them from his club team and figured out a way to get them all into Chamblee. GHSA cannot seriously expect high school teens to know every little rule they have. I did not even know this was a rule until this happened, and my daughter played 4 years of high school soccer. It's on the school and the adults in the room to know the rules and if anyone should be punished, it's them.
I also do not think the punishment of stripping them of a state title fits the crime. Once again, they were not using ineligible or recruited players. They gained no competitive advantage that I can see.
|
|
|
|
Post by hokesmyth on May 14, 2022 19:07:49 GMT -5
The rule goes back to the early '60s when the Lakeside HS and Stone Mtn. HS girls coaches took their best players and combined for a "super" team - and swept thru the GYSA season and state U-19 "Open Cup". Other HS and youth league coaches took steps to stop it.
The GHSA only moves/acts when some violation is brought to their attention.
The GHSA is run/controlled by the football coaches/ADs. They think a basketball player's ejection for five fouls isn't as bad as a soccer player getting a red card.
|
|
|
|
Post by soccermaxx72 on May 15, 2022 9:08:19 GMT -5
Assistant coach, coached 3 of the girls in club, rules state you’re not allowed to do that. But it does not take away from what the girls accomplished on the field! At the end of the day it’s about the kids, they didn’t cheat, they didn’t have any illegal players it’s just a rule about coaching kids in club and high school. I wonder who reported them. I know of several teams that have had club coaches as their coaches. Players were on both their club roster & HS roster. At the very least they had been trained by the coach. Is this a new rule? Chamblee was the best team this year. Wish people would just let it be. It’s ridiculous to not let the players participate in varsity HS sports for a year. It doesn’t matter who reported them. The coaches new the rule and finally got burned. Plenty of other coaches have had to give up their players or stop coaching them as they got to high school because of this rule. Chamblee coaches decided not to follow the rules so they deserve the punishment. At the end of the day the girls still won the title and celebrated on the field so the girls still have that memory. |
|
|
|
Post by nole95 on May 15, 2022 17:53:11 GMT -5
While I understand that a rule is a rule, can someone explain to me why it would be such a big deal for a club coach to coach the same players at the high school level?
Say Coach A coaches an ECNL team and has a crop of players legally attending school A. No illegal recruiting going on. They all live in district, and there are other rules in place anyway to deal with illegal recruiting of players. Why would it be a big deal for this person to coach the same girls in both club and high school? If these are high level players, chances are pretty high that they are going to be starting no matter who the coach is. I'm just not seeing where there is an unfair advantage to the same person coaching the same girls in club or high school?
As far as player development, I would think this is a good thing. If a coach is that good, consistency for these players would be a benefit.
Unless something new comes out, at the end of the day, every player on the Chamblee team was legal, and they legitimately won that state title. None of those girls cheated, and the outcome of all those games is likely the same no matter who was coaching.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldhat on May 15, 2022 18:24:13 GMT -5
Pretty much everything involving GHSA coaching rules has a beginning with football or maybe basketball. If you don't know, everything GHSA revolves around football.
The rule about coaching three or more players was put in to stop out of season practices. Why three? Because if you are working with your QB you need someone to catch the ball.
The rule has been around forever. It is designed to keep the high school field more level. If a coach at school A only coaches one sport he could do a lot more work out of season than a coach at school B that coaches 2 or 3 sports.
Where can undo influence come into play? What if those players decided to play at a different club next year? Could there be reprecussions from the coach?
The coaches know this rule. They chose to ignore it. The AD at the school knows the rule. That person should have provided oversight to make sure this didn't happen. The adults at Chamblee screwed this up for the kids.
The players being suspended for a year is total BS if they live in the Chamblee district. I would not expect them or the parents to know of this rule. A QB from California transferred to Valdosta HS. His parents faked a separation to try and show a bona fide move. They never put their house up for sale in California. Everyone in the situation knew it was cheating. It is one of the things that led the coach to being let go. Valdosta was caught and suspended from going to the play-offs. The QB was suspended from playing for Valdosta. But the QB was not suspended from playing. The whole family moved to the Grayson district and he played QB there. I believe they won state that year. So if they suspend these girls it is BS.
|
|
|
|
Post by GeorgiaSoccerMom on May 15, 2022 20:17:04 GMT -5
Pretty much everything involving GHSA coaching rules has a beginning with football or maybe basketball. If you don't know, everything GHSA revolves around football. The rule about coaching three or more players was put in to stop out of season practices. Why three? Because if you are working with your QB you need someone to catch the ball. The rule has been around forever. It is designed to keep the high school field more level. If a coach at school A only coaches one sport he could do a lot more work out of season than a coach at school B that coaches 2 or 3 sports. Where can undo influence come into play? What if those players decided to play at a different club next year? Could there be reprecussions from the coach? The coaches know this rule. They chose to ignore it. The AD at the school knows the rule. That person should have provided oversight to make sure this didn't happen. The adults at Chamblee screwed this up for the kids. The players being suspended for a year is total BS if they live in the Chamblee district. I would not expect them or the parents to know of this rule. A QB from California transferred to Valdosta HS. His parents faked a separation to try and show a bona fide move. They never put their house up for sale in California. Everyone in the situation knew it was cheating. It is one of the things that led the coach to being let go. Valdosta was caught and suspended from going to the play-offs. The QB was suspended from playing for Valdosta. But the QB was not suspended from playing. The whole family moved to the Grayson district and he played QB there. I believe they won state that year. So if they suspend these girls it is BS. I blame the AD and coach for proceeding. If they didn’t know, that’s their job to know. If they did know, then they shame on them. Rules are put in place for a reason. There is a process to challenge or question rules before they are broken. But breaking rules and then begging for forgiveness is unacceptable. Lines get crossed, then blurry, then eventually caught if it goes on long enough. That said, if the rules were being broke during regular season and that is when to file a complaint… not after a championship is won. I sadly fear this is a situation of adults getting involved and kids suffering… very disheartening if that is the truth. I hope the 3 students win the appeal… if they didn’t know the rule. Hard to prove. |
|
|
|
Post by Keeper on May 15, 2022 20:56:10 GMT -5
Anyone know why the three students were deemed ineligible?
Sounds like they lived in Chamblee’s district but attended another school last year (which typically means they have to sit a year out from Varsity sports).
|
|
|
|
Post by fanatic21 on May 15, 2022 21:25:44 GMT -5
If this is a first time offence (or at least first time caught), I would say stripping them of the state championship is a bit harsh. They broke the rules though and there should be some kind of consequences. I also agree that it's not the 3 girls' fault, so they shouldn't be the ones punished. They should get to play next year. Would probably make more sense for the coach to be suspended from coaching high school - maybe a year - and the program put on some kind of probation, where if they broke another rule within that probation period they would have to vacate wins and/or championships that season and then maybe not be eligible for playoffs the following season.
|
|
|
|
Post by trea30260 on May 15, 2022 21:31:34 GMT -5
If this is a first time offence (or at least first time caught), I would say stripping them of the state championship is a bit harsh. They broke the rules though and there should be some kind of consequences. I also agree that it's not the 3 girls' fault, so they shouldn't be the ones punished. They should get to play next year. Would probably make more sense for the coach to be suspended from coaching high school - maybe a year - and the program put on some kind of probation, where if they broke another rule within that probation period they would have to vacate wins and/or championships that season and then maybe not be eligible for playoffs the following season. Nah, adults have to do their jobs. No slaps on the wrist, those are the rules of the game. Chamblee AD and coach should be fired. IJS |
|
|
|
Post by nole95 on May 15, 2022 21:49:25 GMT -5
Anyone know why the three students were deemed ineligible? Sounds like they lived in Chamblee’s district but attended another school last year (which typically means they have to sit a year out from Varsity sports). Agree. If the girls moved from out of district then yes they do have to sit out a year. Even I know that rule. However if this was the case I assume this would have been included in the original article and also would have been caught well before the conclusion of the championship game. That definitely is flagrant cheating. Thus far this appears to only be the adults in the room letting down the kids. Those girls don’t deserve this and neither does the team. The adults should face consequences, and not the girls who actually earned that championship on the field. |
|
|
|
Post by bolo on May 16, 2022 12:34:53 GMT -5
Anyone know why the three students were deemed ineligible? Sounds like they lived in Chamblee’s district but attended another school last year (which typically means they have to sit a year out from Varsity sports). Agree. If the girls moved from out of district then yes they do have to sit out a year. Even I know that rule. However if this was the case I assume this would have been included in the original article and also would have been caught well before the conclusion of the championship game. That definitely is flagrant cheating. Thus far this appears to only be the adults in the room letting down the kids. Those girls don’t deserve this and neither does the team. The adults should face consequences, and not the girls who actually earned that championship on the field. From what I was told all 3 girls were already at Chamblee prior to this year. Two were seniors, the other is an underclassmen. Only one of the three played any significant minutes. The only reason they even played club for the coach in question is that they had either decided to stop playing club or had been cut from their prior team (can't remember exactly), and this coach knew them and invited them to play for him, just starting this club season. So it's not like he recruited them to Chamblee or he was trying to assemble a super-team or anything. Again, two of the girls in question barely played for Chamblee at all. Some of the girls/parents on Midtown knew this coach from club and knew a few girls from Chamblee were on his club team, so after they got hammered by Chamblee in the final they (Midtown coaches, I guess?) filed a complaint. Not that they get to be awarded the state title instead or anything- it gets vacated. I guess they just decided to get a little vindictive and strip Chamblee of the title. You can argue that Chamblee deserves it for not complying with every single little bylaw in the rulebook, but IMO this situation certainly wasn't violating what the rule was actually intended to prevent/punish. |
|
|
|
Post by mightydawg on May 16, 2022 12:46:56 GMT -5
Agree. If the girls moved from out of district then yes they do have to sit out a year. Even I know that rule. However if this was the case I assume this would have been included in the original article and also would have been caught well before the conclusion of the championship game. That definitely is flagrant cheating. Thus far this appears to only be the adults in the room letting down the kids. Those girls don’t deserve this and neither does the team. The adults should face consequences, and not the girls who actually earned that championship on the field. From what I was told all 3 girls were already at Chamblee prior to this year. Two were seniors, the other is an underclassmen. Only one of the three played any significant minutes. The only reason they even played club for the coach in question is that they had either decided to stop playing club or had been cut from their prior team (can't remember exactly), and this coach knew them and invited them to play for him, just starting this club season. So it's not like he recruited them to Chamblee or he was trying to assemble a super-team or anything. Again, two of the girls in question barely played for Chamblee at all. Some of the girls/parents on Midtown knew this coach from club and knew a few girls from Chamblee were on his club team, so after they got hammered by Chamblee in the final they (Midtown coaches, I guess?) filed a complaint. Not that they get to be awarded the state title instead or anything- it gets vacated. I guess they just decided to get a little vindictive and strip Chamblee of the title. You can argue that Chamblee deserves it for not complying with every single little bylaw in the rulebook, but IMO this situation certainly wasn't violating what the rule was actually intended to prevent/punish. Nothing willl ever change the fact Chamblee played for and won the championship. Vacating the title does not take away the memory. With that being said, I don’t think that explanation helps Chamblee’s case. With that explanation, the coach was an established coach at Chamblee, knew the girls played at Chamblee and invited them to play club for him in violation of the rules. It would have been much better for Chamblee if the coach was new to the club team and the high school and simply did not realize the rule and that the players of this new team played for Chamblee. Your explanation shows intent, not accident or mistake. |
|
|
|
Post by bolo on May 16, 2022 13:34:50 GMT -5
From what I was told all 3 girls were already at Chamblee prior to this year. Two were seniors, the other is an underclassmen. Only one of the three played any significant minutes. The only reason they even played club for the coach in question is that they had either decided to stop playing club or had been cut from their prior team (can't remember exactly), and this coach knew them and invited them to play for him, just starting this club season. So it's not like he recruited them to Chamblee or he was trying to assemble a super-team or anything. Again, two of the girls in question barely played for Chamblee at all. Some of the girls/parents on Midtown knew this coach from club and knew a few girls from Chamblee were on his club team, so after they got hammered by Chamblee in the final they (Midtown coaches, I guess?) filed a complaint. Not that they get to be awarded the state title instead or anything- it gets vacated. I guess they just decided to get a little vindictive and strip Chamblee of the title. You can argue that Chamblee deserves it for not complying with every single little bylaw in the rulebook, but IMO this situation certainly wasn't violating what the rule was actually intended to prevent/punish. Nothing willl ever change the fact Chamblee played for and won the championship. Vacating the title does not take away the memory. With that being said, I don’t think that explanation helps Chamblee’s case. With that explanation, the coach was an established coach at Chamblee, knew the girls played at Chamblee and invited them to play club for him in violation of the rules. It would have been much better for Chamblee if the coach was new to the club team and the high school and simply did not realize the rule and that the players of this new team played for Chamblee. Your explanation shows intent, not accident or mistake. I will say he's a community coach, as opposed to a school employee. I have no idea how long he has served as a community coach for Chamblee. Probably should have mentioned that in the OP. I have no idea if anyone at Chamblee knew about the rule. I actually just found it in the GHSA bylaws. In case anyone wants to look, it's on page 27 of the 187 page bylaw document attached below. It is subheading (g) under rule 2.52 under Qualifications to Coach (the final subheading): 2.52 Member schools may employ persons who are not professionally certificated teachers as assistant coaches in their athletic programs. These individuals are referred to as “community coaches.”
(g) No person who has coached a non-GHSA team in a sport or activity within the previous 12 months may be hired or utilized by a GHSA member school in that same sport of activity IF any of that GHSA school’s players participated on the non-GHSA team that person coached.www.ghsa.net/sites/default/files/documents/Constitution/Constitution21-22completecx37.pdfMan, that seems really restrictive to me, especially since it allows for ZERO leeway in terms of players and goes back a full calendar year. Let's say Chamblee wanted to bring someone on as a community coach in the spring of 2023, and that person coached a U15 club team in the 2021-22 season (with club season running through roughly Memorial Day 2022). If there was a player who played for that club coach at U15, but then player moved under a different coach for her 2022-23 U17 club season, either that coach would not be eligible to join Chamblee, or that player could not play for Chamblee if they brought that coach on board. Even if that player already went to Chamblee and possibly even played on the team as a freshman when she was U15. That seems crazy to me. There has got to be some common sense applied here, either by allowing for a certain maximum number of players to be included, or "if the players are already established/playing at the school, this doesn't apply". I get the spirit of the rule- they don't want a club coach going to a private school and convincing a bunch of their high level club players ("ringers") to transfer to that school just to play soccer for them- as unlikely as that sounds, considering the logistics and other factors involved. But this instance certainly doesn't even remotely fall into that category. However, knowing the GHSA, they'll stick to their guns, especially since "it's soccer, who cares?" |
|
|
|
Post by mightydawg on May 16, 2022 13:51:50 GMT -5
That is not the intent of the rule at all. The intent of the rule is to keep a high school coach from coaching the players outside of the high school season. GHSA has very strict rules about when teams can begin practice. For soccer, the earliest date for soccer practice in 2022 was January 3rd and the earliest date for a match was January 24th.
Now if I want a really good high school team, I go coach at a club and get my entire team to play for me at that club. I coach them throughout the fall and through the winter at the club. All of the other schools are waiting on the practice window to open but my team has a head start because I am practicing for "club" not high school. I can even play games in January for the club while other high school teams can't. See the problem. This rule applies to all sports, not just soccer.
|
|
dc
Jr. Academy
Posts: 52
|
Post by dc on May 16, 2022 13:53:34 GMT -5
I also feel for the kids who didn't get the chance to advance in the playoffs or didn't get a chance to play for a state title because a program chose not to follow the by-laws and the infraction was only revealed after the playoffs ended. |
|
|
|
Post by docnfulton on May 16, 2022 14:00:05 GMT -5
That is not the intent of the rule at all. The intent of the rule is to keep a high school coach from coaching the players outside of the high school season. GHSA has very strict rules about when teams can begin practice. For soccer, the earliest date for soccer practice in 2022 was January 3rd and the earliest date for a match was January 24th. Now if I want a really good high school team, I go coach at a club and get my entire team to play for me at that club. I coach them throughout the fall and through the winter at the club. All of the other schools are waiting on the practice window to open but my team has a head start because I am practicing for "club" not high school. I can even play games in January for the club while other high school teams can't. See the problem. This rule applies to all sports, not just soccer. |
|
|
|
Post by bolo on May 16, 2022 14:12:48 GMT -5
That is not the intent of the rule at all. The intent of the rule is to keep a high school coach from coaching the players outside of the high school season. GHSA has very strict rules about when teams can begin practice. For soccer, the earliest date for soccer practice in 2022 was January 3rd and the earliest date for a match was January 24th. Now if I want a really good high school team, I go coach at a club and get my entire team to play for me at that club. I coach them throughout the fall and through the winter at the club. All of the other schools are waiting on the practice window to open but my team has a head start because I am practicing for "club" not high school. I can even play games in January for the club while other high school teams can't. See the problem. This rule applies to all sports, not just soccer. Didn't think about it from that side of the coin, so you make a good point. Though obviously that wasn't even close to what was happening here. Which again though is why I think there should be some allowance made for a certain number of players (or percentage of the team, since roster sizes vary so much from sport-to-sport) to be able to play for a club coach within the past calendar year and still have that person be eligible to be a community coach. Because let's be honest, many of these schools need community coaches to actually coach the players/teams if there aren't teachers at a given school that are qualified/knowledgeable enough to coach certain sports. I remember my high school tennis coach many years ago didn't even play tennis, but they needed someone to be the "coach", so he took the job (and the small stipend that went with it). I guarantee you that happens all across the state, especially at smaller schools that don't have as many teachers or lack resources. I understand it's a fine line, I just wish things could be looked at more on a case-by-case basis, but I also understand that's not how organizations like GHSA work, and I get it, they don't have unlimited time or resources either. Easier to make an extremely restrictive blanket rule and let the chips fall where they may. |
|
