How would you have handled it?

quote:

Amazingly, a "concerned citizen" called the CIF office to double check this player and lo and behold the mistake is found.

That is amazing! That invisible cloak of anonymity is also quite amazing. I don't understand how people like this "concerned citizen" (who surely has no stake in the outcome) can stand the sight of themselves.

I've seen this happen so many times thst it's become almost expected, and the outcome is never good. When adults screw up like this it's the kids that really get screwed. I'm with you BBfam. Rule on it and be done with it.

CIF shoulda just made whatever ruling and moved on. They know their rules and they know if they messed up themselves or not.

I do agree with spizz, err on the side of the kid. From youth baseball on up, not a whole lot of that happens though. Its just the way it is.

It seems to me that CIF is contradicting their ruling in this case. They say the player is eligible and then require another game?? Doesn't make much since to me. I don't know what that accomplished other than both teams are now down 1 pitcher for the "real" playoffs.

Unfortunately, our cross town team lost, and pretty bad. IMO both teams lose. Obviously the team with the better record and now the other team because they will always have a "black mark" on how they got into the playoffs.

Ironically,I found out, the League Commissioner comes from the school who came in third. This makes even less sense to me now. How do you deem a player eligible then make his team play a single, winner take all game on lower seed turf? Has to make you wonder.......I know I have many more questions now.

Eligible--Why the playoff? . Sounds like someone with some clout stuck their nose in, too bad, ruining playoff for all kids involved.

Don't matter that a concerned citizen blew the whistle. Appears the concerned citizen was right and all you want is everything to be on the level. Therefore, nobody should have an issue with that. Since the player was ineligible, the CIF should've ruled the team forfeit those games. The AD screwed up and CIF dropped the ball and showed no backbone by going with a playoff at a neutral site.

quote:

Originally posted by zombywoof:
Don't matter that a concerned citizen blew the whistle. Appears the concerned citizen was right and all you want is everything to be on the level. Therefore, nobody should have an issue with that. Since the player was ineligible, the CIF should've ruled the team forfeit those games. The AD screwed up and CIF dropped the ball and showed no backbone by going with a playoff at a neutral site.

Now here's an example of why this always turns out so poorly. Some will read what they want to read and assume that the kid or school is trying to pull something. People start forming opinions without all the facts, and pretty soon the games take a back seat to the parents, admins, and lawyers bickering. BBfam stated CIF ruled the player was ELIGIBLE, but to appease the outraged they made a compromise. Bad idea.

All this just because some concerned citizen, that wants to make sure little johnny isn't getting cheated out of his championship birthright, made an allegation. Accountability goes both ways. If a person is willing to step fwd and make this allegation with his/her name attached to it, or a school self-reports a violation then fine. Otherwise just sit back and let the kids play it out.

What town is this in NorCal. I would love to read the newspaper article.

Sounds like a hasty decision was made.

quote:

Now here's an example of why this always turns out so poorly. Some will read what they want to read and assume that the kid or school is trying to pull something. People start forming opinions without all the facts, and pretty soon the games take a back seat to the parents, admins, and lawyers bickering.

Assume what? The OP stated the facts in the post. Someone blew the whistle and the end result was they were right. Unless there's more to the story that's missing, the facts in the post are what to go on.

Bottom line is if the administrators did their job, they wouldn't have had this problem in the first place and the concerned citizen would've looked like an idiot for pursuing it. Bad job by the administrators for allowing that to happen.

Also a lot of this may be hearsay and/or very one sided

The facts are that the paperwork did not get filed properly. There seemed to be confusion on the AD's part (who eventually had to resign). It is unclear whether or not all of this comes down to him. I have a close friend who is very involved and things aren't always as they seem and the AD, though ultimately didn't follow through, is the only guy taking the fall though maybe not the only one at fault. Not my point to judge, I don't know all the facts.

CIF had an emergency meeting and DID rule the player eligible. If he was in fact eligible like the ruling decision, then there should be no need for a playoff. They have the better record in league and beat the 3rd place team 2 of 3 games. If CIF had not found the player eligible (but they did) then again, no need for a playoff because the 2nd place team now becomes last place as all there games would have been forfeited.

As for the "concerned citizen", obviously there really was no concern at all other than to start trouble. If they were so concerned, why not bring it to attention at the beginning of the season when it could have been taken care of??

What town in Nor Cal?? Well, many in our neck of the woods are chanting "Pedroia was right!"

If you look at the articles, many of the comments have been erased from both sites. It was getting to where adults were actually threatening each other. Fortunately, the boys on both sides handled the game in a mature manner and left it on the field. Maybe the grown ups should take note??

TR-
I am actually trying to leave most of my opinions out and state the facts as we know them. I left a lot of behind the scenes stuff out. I can start a whole new thread on the "concerned caller" but then I would have to be very biased. My son plays for neither school, I just think an unfortunate way to settle this issue wanted others thoughts as well.

quote:

Assume what? The OP stated the facts in the post. Someone blew the whistle and the end result was they were right. Unless there's more to the story that's missing, the facts in the post are what to go on.

Guilt is the assumption, and that's likely what the concerned citizen assumed without knowing all of the facts. It seems that a clerical error, and not cheating, is the only infraction. If you believe the CC knew this to be the case, do you still stand behind that person?

BBfam, the original poster, stated that the player is eligible. Apparently you read that INeligible. This just highlights the problems in these cases.

I'm not disagreeing with you that the AD screwed up. But I cannot support that a whistleblower trying to uncover a crime, and a snitch trying to advance his own agenda can in any way be considered equal.

In this thread do we have all the actual facts????

What facts would you like?

*Paperwork not done correctly-fact
*2nd place team told they had to forfeit all their games but didn't-fact
*CIF decides player IS eligible but forced a 1 game playoff between 2nd place and 3rd place anyway-fact

Caller really is a non-issue (other than shady motives).

My thoughts are it is black and white, not gray. Either the deciding beings rule player is eligible and 2nd place stands or deciding beings rule that he was ineligible and the next best record goes. Not try to appease the mob with this "gray area" game. The kid either "is or isn't" There should be no in between.

where did you get the "facts" ?

Especially since your son was not involved in this

Not trying to pick a fight TR. Much of what I have has been found from both town's papers but I also have a source "involved" in the situation and I can tell you those facts are true.

Honestly though, what "facts" are causing you concern? At this point either the 2nd place should have been eligible or they should have had to forfeit. I haven't been able to find in the by-laws (on line) that a 1 game playoff is how they recommend dealing with an eligible/ineligible player. I don't want to point fingers or say that anyone had ill-intentions (other than the caller). Just that it appears they kind of made it up as they went.

I think in CIF's decision to make people happy, they created a gray area and now there is huge animosity between the towns and players. I would imagine next year could get real ugly.

The thing is what you are talking is "hearsay" from papers and a source who is involved.


Let me ask you this --you are not directly involved --so why bring it up here?

quote:

Guilt is the assumption, and that's likely what the concerned citizen assumed without knowing all of the facts. It seems that a clerical error, and not cheating, is the only infraction. If you believe the CC knew this to be the case, do you still stand behind that person?

There's no assumption of guilt about cheating. The post seems to indicate that the paperwork didn't go thru to make that player ineligible. Who ever this 'concerned citizen' was obviously must've knew the process. Something must've gone on for somebody to follow up on it. However, sounds like the CIF only made it worse by baking down and not making a firm decision.

If it were me, I rule the player ineligible and the AD would take the hit for allowing the clerical error to happen.

It was mentioned that the AD eventually had to resign over this, which backs up that he screwed up and the CIF should've simply ruled that player ineligible. The CIF did nobody any favors by laying it down the middle and made it far worse than they should have. As bbfam mentioned, it should be black or white, not gray. BBfam is also right that the caller is a non-issue inspite of any motives.

In my original post I just asked for webster's opinions-that is all. Just like most every other post on this board.

The decision is already made, the game already played. I just thought it was interesting and thought others may think the same.

BBfam,

In my opinion, once the local section of the CIF made the initial announcement that the player was declared ineligible, and the team would forfeit their victories, no good solution was available.

Declaring a player ineligible for a simple paperwork violation (which he has no control over) runs counter to CIF precedent, but perhaps the local section didn't know that. I doubt that CIF state would allow the decision, when challenged, to stand.

On the other hand, once school "C" thinks they are replacing school "B" in the playoffs, it is difficult to rescind that without the partisans of "C" feeling that someting has been taken away from them. I suppose that's why the section decided, in effect, to let the choice be determined on the field.

They had already made one bad decision. I think they tried to find a solution that would avoid choosing school "B" or "C", because whichever they chose, the other school would deem it a bad decision.