Ohio team schedules 2 quick games to get ejected player back for state

[w_sohl]

Originally Posted by scrounge

Seems like there would be a fairly straightforward fix: if a player is suspended in an OHSAA tournament game, they must sit out the next tournament game.

But I think it's a little unfair to say the state "allowed" this to happen...the weasels found a loophole and accomplices to help them go through it, but the state couldn't just implement rules on the fly.

That is exactly the way the rule should read. You miss the next scheduled game that is on you schedule at the time of the ejection. If that game is rained out then it is the following game, so forth and so on till the suspension is served. If it is a tournament game, the suspension applies to that tournament and you miss the next game in that tournament. Any games that are not part of the tournament between the suspension and the next tournament game can be played in.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by w_sohl

That is exactly the way the rule should read. You miss the next scheduled game that is on you schedule at the time of the ejection.

The problem with this is the weather in Ohio wreaks havoc with schedules.

Let's say a kid is dumped on Wednesday and the team is scheduled for Thursday and Friday but off for the weekend. However, rain causes postponements for Thursday and Friday. The original schedule called for the weekend off, now they schedule not one but two games over the weekend. By using the term "scheduled games" a player could be forced to serve a suspension greater than the rule calls for. (the reschedules may not be with the original teams)

This specific situation is easily fixed by inserting the regulation "if you are ejected in a tournament game, you are suspended for the next two tournament games."

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

We're going to have to agree to disagree here. This entite matter is a symptom of a much larger generational problem. There is virtually NO accountibility anymore for young men and women when they cross the line. This kid steps out of bounds and swears at an adult who's been placed in an authoritative position, and it appears the entire system makes allowances for it. In the days I played baseball none of the kids I played baseball with would have gotten away with something like this. Our coaches and school administrators would have supprted the official, and an a$$kicking woyld have been the order of the day by our fathers.

Tim.

Nobody is disagreeing with you. They're telling you why they're right.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Nobody is disagreeing with you. They're telling you why they're right.

I thought that when people take up two different sides of a discussion the term best used to describe their differences is "disagreement". If you think otherwise, we'll just have to disagree.................

Tim.

[w_sohl]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Nobody is disagreeing with you. They're telling you why they're right.

Isn't that the definition of disagreeing? When they take a different stance and try to sell you on their belief?

[Adam]

Colorado is very clear on this. A student who is ejected is ineligible to play a game at any level until he/she misses the next scheduled game at the level where the ejection took place. IOW, if a player is ejected from a JV game, he cannot play any level until he misses the next scheduled JV game.

The rules specify, "A school may not schedule a contest after an ejection in order to circumvent the penalty."

IOW, the OP couldn't happen here. Frankly, I'm surprised all states don't have the same rule.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Nobody is disagreeing with you. They're telling you why they're right.

I don't even know what this means.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by Adam

The rules specify, "A school may not schedule a contest after an ejection in order to circumvent the penalty."

So will they say...we just want to play, we're not circumventing the penalty.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

So will they say...we just want to play, we're not circumventing the penalty.

No. If the game isn't already scheduled, then adding a game doesn't change the suspension.

But, in the OP, a team could "schedule" extra games between the playoff games. If someone is kicked out, play the games without the player. If no one is kicked out, then cancel the games.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

So will they say...we just want to play, we're not circumventing the penalty.

Fine, then junior gets to sit those games, plus the game that was scheduled at the time of his suspension.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

No. If the game isn't already scheduled, then adding a game doesn't change the suspension.

But, in the OP, a team could "schedule" extra games between the playoff games. If someone is kicked out, play the games without the player. If no one is kicked out, then cancel the games.

Assuming scheduled games between playoff games are allowed, then yes, this would be possible. This also assumes that all the players on the team aren't looking at their playing time limits.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Adam

Assuming scheduled games between playoff games are allowed, then yes, this would be possible. This also assumes that all the players on the team aren't looking at their playing time limits.

Both of those would be considerations in the OP as well.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Both of those would be considerations in the OP as well.

True, and the coach could always play JV players in the cheater games.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by w_sohl

Isn't that the definition of disagreeing? When they take a different stance and try to sell you on their belief?

I don't think you "sell" your beliefs............that's what those snake oil salesmen used to do (?), or a revival tent preacher. I don't like the term, "agree to disagree".

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

I thought that when people take up two different sides of a discussion the term best used to describe their differences is "disagreement". If you think otherwise, we'll just have to disagree.................

Tim.

That would be true, but you always seem to get on the side of the fence that suits your agenda at the moment...........seen it too many times in the past...........instead of a discussion, you have axes you want to grind.