TEXAShorn21 Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 I'm playing catch up. Why are they just now ruling them ineligible? They played up until this week right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truth100 Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 2 minutes ago, TEXAShorn21 said: I'm playing catch up. Why are they just now ruling them ineligible? They played up until this week right? Looks like a winless season on the record books bad bad situation 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TEXAShorn21 Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 That is going to be upsetting for the kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racer55 Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 What I want to know is, are they related to Lynx Hawthorne? What does he have to do with this? I see his wife is a teacher at a school in Colorado and looks to know the brothers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H3llR4z0r Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 4 minutes ago, Racer55 said: What I want to know is, are they related to Lynx Hawthorne? What does he have to do with this? I see his wife is a teacher at a school in Colorado and looks to know the brothers. Considering I see him posting on Twitter about Mt. Vernon's practices, I bet there's a real close connection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StangtilDeath Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 3 minutes ago, Racer55 said: What I want to know is, are they related to Lynx Hawthorne? What does he have to do with this? I see his wife is a teacher at a school in Colorado and looks to know the brothers. From what I gather he is the unlisted coach who was supposedly making a documentary but in reality was coaching the kids...I think... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truth100 Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 10 minutes ago, TEXAShorn21 said: That is going to be upsetting for the kids. If they thought about the kids and town AT THE BEGINNING none of this would be going on just sayin +1000 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racer55 Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 Looks like he transferred to Refugio when he was playing for Weimar a while back. He played at Baylor and in Italy for Briles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blesseddaily Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 Wasn't his dad a coach at a small class A school in east Tx before he went to Italy?? Seems like we played them when we were at Maud. Detroit maybe?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportsfan4life Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 In regards to the ineligibility of the two players, I think most people are missing the bigger picture. This is a dangerous precedent that this DEC has just set. Let's say, hypothetically, of course, your team has a move-in or transfer player that was approved by the DEC. He plays 3 or 4 games, and then a school in the district files a complaint about said player and a hearing is held and said player is again ruled eligible. A few weeks go by, and your team has won more games with said player, and then another complaint is filed by either that same team or another team in the district for reasons they would probably never admit to, and this time, your player is ruled ineligible. So. based on the comments I have been reading here, most of y'all would have no problem with your team forfeiting your wins with a player who was only playing after being ruled eligible twice, AND you would blame your coach for playing the player. I truly doubt that you would be okay with it, but I have to assume you would be since most of you seem to think that multiple hearings with different rulings is okay. This precedent of eligible, eligible, no, wait ineligible just invites schools with a vendetta to file complaints over and over again until they get the ruling they want. It may be all fun and games to you now because you think you have eliminated a district threat, but I highly doubt it will be as much fun when the shoe is on the other foot. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blesseddaily Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 1 minute ago, sportsfan4life said: In regards to the ineligibility of the two players, I think most people are missing the bigger picture. This is a dangerous precedent that this DEC has just set. Let's say, hypothetically, of course, your team has a move-in or transfer player that was approved by the DEC. He plays 3 or 4 games, and then a school in the district files a complaint about said player and a hearing is held and said player is again ruled eligible. A few weeks go by, and your team has won more games with said player, and then another complaint is filed by either that same team or another team in the district for reasons they would probably never admit to, and this time, your player is ruled ineligible. So. based on the comments I have been reading here, most of y'all would have no problem with your team forfeiting your wins with a player who was only playing after being ruled eligible twice, AND you would blame your coach for playing the player. I truly doubt that you would be okay with it, but I have to assume you would be since most of you seem to think that multiple hearings with different rulings is okay. This precedent of eligible, eligible, no, wait ineligible just invites schools with a vendetta to file complaints over and over again until they get the ruling you want. It may be all fun and games to you now because you think you have eliminated a district threat, but I highly doubt it will be as much fun when the shoe is on the other foot. It's not "setting a precedent"...it has happened before. If ALL the information had been presented the first time I bet the DEC would not have ruled the way they did. THAT is the reason for the multiple rulings. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportsfan4life Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 Just now, blesseddaily said: It's not "setting a precedent"...it has happened before. If ALL the information had been presented the first time I bet the DEC would not have ruled the way they did. THAT is the reason for the multiple rulings. I respectfully disagree. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TEXAShorn21 Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 That's crazy. You would think ruling them eligible would only happen once. So, how many times can a team or person make a complaint? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blesseddaily Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 Just now, TEXAShorn21 said: That's crazy. You would think ruling them eligible would only happen once. So, how many times can a team or person make a complaint? The ONLY reason that they would have another hearing on the matter would be if the original information was not factual or some important information was omitted. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportsfan4life Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 5 minutes ago, Rabbs63 said: Well put coach Briles! Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TEXAShorn21 Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 Gotcha.. So, I'm wondering what did they discover or what information did they receive to overturn it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horns85 Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 1 hour ago, kooldown54 said: Ineligible until a ruling is made, they meet on it Tuesday An appeal hasn't even been filled yet, so common sense is a date and time can't even be known yet. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H3llR4z0r Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 The players eligibility is not all that's in question here. There's also the problem with the coach/photographer/whatever you want to refer to him as. But as stated before, in the original DEC meeting, only 3 districts voted, the other 3 abstained. That being said, 2 different schools in the district have brought forth information, to my understanding. Either A. The information brought forth this particular time was a lot more influential that the information brought forth the last time or B. There's been some persuading going on. I'm not sure. I don't think it has anything to do with Mt. Vernon "winning," as they were winning the first time it was talked about. Who knows though. If I was a betting man, I'd say the kids get reinstated. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TEXAShorn21 Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 1 minute ago, H3llR4z0r said: The players eligibility is not all that's in question here. There's also the problem with the coach/photographer/whatever you want to refer to him as. But as stated before, in the original DEC meeting, only 3 districts voted, the other 3 abstained. That being said, 2 different schools in the district have brought forth information, to my understanding. Either A. The information brought forth this particular time was a lot more influential that the information brought forth the last time or B. There's been some persuading going on. I'm not sure. I don't think it has anything to do with Mt. Vernon "winning," as they were winning the first time it was talked about. Who knows though. If I was a betting man, I'd say the kids get If the kids by chance get reinstated. What do you think they would rule on the photagrapher/coach? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H3llR4z0r Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 Just now, TEXAShorn21 said: If the kids by chance get reinstated. What do you think they would rule on the photagrapher/coach? I don't see how they can allow that. That's definitely an uh oh, in my opinion. Especially if they have concrete proof that he's been coaching (which I'm sure they do if it's been brought up). I'm just not sure what the repercussions would be for that happening? I wonder if Mt. Vernon is feeling like it's worth it at this point? Serious question. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeepster89 Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 Yep still worth it. Cant answer anything about the coach/photographer thing but, uil deemed those 2 students eligible not only once but twice. The first time was in july when they first moved to mv and the second time a couple weeks ago when they had the formal complaint. I just wonder if this happens again come baseball season as the kids are just as good at that sport as they are football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H3llR4z0r Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 2 minutes ago, Purpletigerfan said: Yep still worth it. Cant answer anything about the coach/photographer thing but, uil deemed those 2 students eligible not only once but twice. The first time was in july when they first moved to mv and the second time a couple weeks ago when they had the formal complaint. I just wonder if this happens again come baseball season as the kids are just as good at that sport as they are football. Should we be looking for y'all to hire Joe Maddon or? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H3llR4z0r Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 There has to be another reason it was voted on again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TEXAShorn21 Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 10 minutes ago, H3llR4z0r said: I don't see how they can allow that. That's definitely an uh oh, in my opinion. Especially if they have concrete proof that he's been coaching (which I'm sure they do if it's been brought up). I'm just not sure what the repercussions would be for that happening? I wonder if Mt. Vernon is feeling like it's worth it at this point? Serious question. I'm guessing they are going to fight it. I can't see them just letting this ride. I would like to know the repercussions too. One things for sure. They wouldn't overturn it unless they had some solid/strong evidence. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HS1988 Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 18 minutes ago, H3llR4z0r said: The players eligibility is not all that's in question here. There's also the problem with the coach/photographer/whatever you want to refer to him as. But as stated before, in the original DEC meeting, only 3 districts voted, the other 3 abstained. That being said, 2 different schools in the district have brought forth information, to my understanding. Either A. The information brought forth this particular time was a lot more influential that the information brought forth the last time or B. There's been some persuading going on. I'm not sure. I don't think it has anything to do with Mt. Vernon "winning," as they were winning the first time it was talked about. Who knows though. If I was a betting man, I'd say the kids get reinstated. Maybe it wasn't "influential ", maybe it was damning evidence? Idk either. Would have to assume 6 educated people fairly familiar with UIL policy are not complete idiots. Who knows..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts