Anthony Angello and team disqualified by scheduling error

Cornell recruit has high school season abruptly stopped.


[highschoolsports.syracuse.com]





Section III denies Fayetteville-Manlius' plea to let hockey team back in playoffs
Donnie Webb | dwebb@syracuse.com, February 13, 2013 6:17 p.m.

Fayetteville-Manlius High School today lost its case get its boy's ice hockey team reinstated for the playoffs.

F-M superintendent of schools Corliss Kaiser, high school athletics director Scott Sugar and attorney Joe Shields presented the school's appeal to overturn a decision by the Section III hockey committee to terminate the Hornets for playing too many games in violation of state bylaws. A few hours later, the governing body announced its ruling.

"FM’s argument that the differentiation between contests and scrimmages is unavailing in that it totally ignores (the rule) which describes in detail the differences between a game (contest) and a scrimmage," the ruling states. "We therefore reject that argument."

In the hearing, Shields argued that the team shouldn't be penalized.

"These athletes did nothing wrong," Shields said. "They earned the right to play (in the Section III tournament). To my knowledge, it's never been done in hockey before. We'd ask you to overturn the decision and allow these student-athletes to play."

A three-member advisory panel of Carol Moss, Ken Fuller and Brad Hamer represented Section III. Moss and Fuller are past Section III presidents. Hamer is the current president. Boys ice hockey chairman John Cunningham was present. Section III executive director John Rathbun acted as recording secretary.

Shields said the school filed its appeal Tuesday afternoon and provided a copy to Homer-Cortland, the team that would be bumped out of the playoffs if the Hornets are reinstated. Rathbun said he found a copy of the appeal was slid under the door of the Section III offices when he arrived at work Wednesday morning.

The hearing began at about 1 p.m. and lasted for about 30 minutes. The advisory panel then met in closed executive session for about 10 minutes. The decision was announced about 5:30 p.m.

Shields, serving as the district's legal counsel from the firm Ferrara, Fiorenza, Larrison, Barrett & Reitz, argued against what he called the "hyper technical enforcement" of an ambiguous rule that does not define the word "contests." He said hockey teams throughout the state can play as many scrimmages as they want and that everyone has played more than 20 contests. He said F-M would still be playing if one of the "contests" had simply been designated as a scrimmage.

"These 21 kids shouldn't be caught by a hyper technical rule," he said.

The decision to boot Fayetteville-Manlius out of the playoffs happened Sunday after the school admitted to playing 21 games, one over the limit The issue for F-M revolves around a January 10 contest with Cazenovia in Morrisville. Shields said had coaches designated the game as a scrimmage instead of a game, the Hornets would still be playing as a No. 2 seed in this week's Section III playoffs.

The problem for FM is that Cazenovia considered the contest a game, not a scrimmage. Cazenovia told Section III it charged admission and played three periods as in a regular game. A scrimmage is defined as having two periods, no admission and structured sessions in which teams must work on man-down situations.

"That game was not going to be considered a scrimmage if both teams didn't agree,” Cunningham said.

Fuller argued with Shields that the state bylaws are clear in what constitutes a scrimmage. Cunningham said Sugar could provide no proof during a Sunday meeting with the hockey committee that the contest was not a game, but a scrimmage.
Shields said F-M hockey coach Sean Brown did not want to play the final game of the season against Rome Free Academy on Saturday. The contest was originally scheduled for Friday but snowed out. At that point, Brown did not want to risk getting any of his players hurt for the playoffs. Shields said the Hornets had nothing to gain by playing the game and the outcome would not change the team's seeding or placement in the playoffs.

Sugar said RFA coach Greg Cuthbertson insisted on playing the game. It wanted, he said, the opportunity to win its division outright and that F-M was under obligation to play, even though he said the school was unaware that it would constitute a 21st game, one over the limit as established by the New York State Public High School Athletic Association.

Shields said that F-M does not walk away from its responsibility for failing to accurately track the number of games.

Moss asked Sugar how he and the school did not know the rule or that the hockey team was at risk for being disqualified.

"How did this slip through?" she asked.

Sugar said he did not know the team was playing its 21st game against RFA. Had he known, Sugar said he would have spoken to RFA athletic director about the consequences F-M faced.

"We failed to catch the 21st game," Sugar said.

Moss expressed some sympathy. She said it's like watching two school buses pass along a highway and hope they're going to the right school.

Fuller was not as sympathetic. He said F-M's ambiguity was a failure to understand the state bylaws and rules was "real foreign to me. It feels like you're grasping for something."

Shields called himself a "hockey nut" with children in the sport. He maintained there is ambiguity in designating contests whether they're two periods or three.

"These things are defined in the rule book," Fuller said. "I think there's a clear distinction of which is which."

Hamer asked Cunningham if disqualifying a hockey team for playing too many regular season games had ever happened? Cunningham said in his 30 years of coaching, it had not. Shields said that's 30 years in which the rule had not been invoked. Cunningham argued, no, that's 30 years in which no one had broken the rule.

"We don't contest at all that adults at F-M should have known," Shields said.

Fuller said the three members of the advisory panel have about 100 years of service in athletics among them. None of them, he said, take any joy, out of decisions that cause kids not to play sports.

"It's about the worst thing you can do," he said. "It's tough. Nobody wants to do that. I'm struggling."

Shields presented statements from individual Fayetteville-Manlius hockey players, who were devastated by the decision. The statements were not played or read during the appeal process.

Shields said afterward he thought the panel listened to the appeal. He declined to say what action might come next.

The committee in its decision urged the F-M district to set up a system that would ensure games are properly designated as "scrimmages" and "contests."

"Such violations are most often made by the adults in charge because they are in the
positions of responsibility," the committee said in the document.

Staff writer Donnie Webb can be reached at 470-2149 ordwebb@syracuse.com

Section III decision vs. F-M hockey

More recent articles and letters have pointed out how this, and a situation with the Skaneateles football team being denied participation in last years playoffs, always punish the students and not the adults who make the errors. Wouldn't you think that they could come up with some penalty for the adults and let the kids play. The FM example is particularly ridiculous in that they are allowed to have as many scrimages as they want, just don't call them games. There are other restrictions, such as 2 not 3 periods, and some controlled situational play, like working on PP/PK. But really, now...

This is pretty bad. Take the Solomon route and let them and Homer-Cortland have a play-in game. Be creative, it's flipping high school.

Or H-C could at least use this as a Teachable Moment and withdraw for the obvious reason of integrity.

Trotsky
This is pretty bad. Take the Solomon route and let them and Homer-Cortland have a play-in game. Be creative, it's flipping high school.

Or H-C could at least use this as a Teachable Moment and withdraw for the obvious reason of integrity.

Very good ideas, why couldn't those adults think of that.

I have no problem with what the district, Cazenovia or Homer-Cortland did here. Someone has to be the first to get penalized for violating the rule.

The real scandal to me is how apparently easy it is to abuse the game/scrimmage distinction and get high school kids playing a lot of additional full-contact games. The rule is supposed to protect kids from overscheduling - even kids who don't want the protection.

ugarte
I have no problem with what the district, Cazenovia or Homer-Cortland did here. Someone has to be the first to get penalized for violating the rule.

The real scandal to me is how apparently easy it is to abuse the game/scrimmage distinction and get high school kids playing a lot of additional full-contact games. The rule is supposed to protect kids from overscheduling - even kids who don't want the protection.

Actually the rule was supposedly monetary, so that some schools wouldn't have to schedule a number of games. I don't think, from what I read, that it ever was to "protect the kids".

My problem was, and is, that you're penalizing the kids for what adults did, and nothing happens to the adults. There has to be a better way.

Jim Hyla

ugarte
I have no problem with what the district, Cazenovia or Homer-Cortland did here. Someone has to be the first to get penalized for violating the rule.

The real scandal to me is how apparently easy it is to abuse the game/scrimmage distinction and get high school kids playing a lot of additional full-contact games. The rule is supposed to protect kids from overscheduling - even kids who don't want the protection.

Actually the rule was supposedly monetary, so that some schools wouldn't have to schedule a number of games. I don't think, from what I read, that it ever was to "protect the kids".

My problem was, and is, that you're penalizing the kids for what adults did, and nothing happens to the adults. There has to be a better way.

You can't penalize a school without penalizing the kids. A lot of times you can't arrest a father without penalizing his children. The only reasonable way to punish a school for institutional mistakes will have collateral effects on the students. That doesn't mean you shouldn't feel bad for the kids, but it does mean that wanting "different" punishment is futile.

ugarte

Jim Hyla

ugarte
I have no problem with what the district, Cazenovia or Homer-Cortland did here. Someone has to be the first to get penalized for violating the rule.

The real scandal to me is how apparently easy it is to abuse the game/scrimmage distinction and get high school kids playing a lot of additional full-contact games. The rule is supposed to protect kids from overscheduling - even kids who don't want the protection.

Actually the rule was supposedly monetary, so that some schools wouldn't have to schedule a number of games. I don't think, from what I read, that it ever was to "protect the kids".

My problem was, and is, that you're penalizing the kids for what adults did, and nothing happens to the adults. There has to be a better way.

You can't penalize a school without penalizing the kids. A lot of times you can't arrest a father without penalizing his children. The only reasonable way to punish a school for institutional mistakes will have collateral effects on the students. That doesn't mean you shouldn't feel bad for the kids, but it does mean that wanting "different" punishment is futile.

Not entirely true. You could fire, suspend or fine the individuals who were responsible for the scheduling violation. In the case of a fine this wouldn't impact the kids at all, except in the secondary sense of affecting whether someone was willing to coach hockey under such possible sanctions.

I suspect that the coaches/organizers contracts don't permit this kind of work sanction though.

KeithK

ugarte

Jim Hyla

ugarte
I have no problem with what the district, Cazenovia or Homer-Cortland did here. Someone has to be the first to get penalized for violating the rule.

The real scandal to me is how apparently easy it is to abuse the game/scrimmage distinction and get high school kids playing a lot of additional full-contact games. The rule is supposed to protect kids from overscheduling - even kids who don't want the protection.

Actually the rule was supposedly monetary, so that some schools wouldn't have to schedule a number of games. I don't think, from what I read, that it ever was to "protect the kids".

My problem was, and is, that you're penalizing the kids for what adults did, and nothing happens to the adults. There has to be a better way.

You can't penalize a school without penalizing the kids. A lot of times you can't arrest a father without penalizing his children. The only reasonable way to punish a school for institutional mistakes will have collateral effects on the students. That doesn't mean you shouldn't feel bad for the kids, but it does mean that wanting "different" punishment is futile.

Not entirely true. You could fire, suspend or fine the individuals who were responsible for the scheduling violation. In the case of a fine this wouldn't impact the kids at all, except in the secondary sense of affecting whether someone was willing to coach hockey under such possible sanctions.

I suspect that the coaches/organizers contracts don't permit this kind of work sanction though.

Let's be clear about where this discussion has gone, unless you are being pedantic in your response to me: you are saying that it is more reasonable to FIRE one or more people for a scheduling snafu - people who may have a family to support, etc. - than it is to make a bunch of kids temporarily sad.

ugarte
Let's be clear about where this discussion has gone, unless you are being pedantic in your response to me: you are saying that it is more reasonable to FIRE one or more people for a scheduling snafu - people who may have a family to support, etc. - than it is to make a bunch of kids temporarily sad.

Not trying to be pedantic. Just lazy and not reading in any detail what the screw up was. Or at least not thinking about it. While my answer might still be appropriate in some circumstances, I apologize for suggesting that it makes sense here.

KeithK

ugarte
Let's be clear about where this discussion has gone, unless you are being pedantic in your response to me: you are saying that it is more reasonable to FIRE one or more people for a scheduling snafu - people who may have a family to support, etc. - than it is to make a bunch of kids temporarily sad.

Not trying to be pedantic. Just lazy and not reading in any detail what the screw up was. Or at least not thinking about it. While my answer might still be appropriate in some circumstances, I apologize for suggesting that it makes sense here.

This is your periodic reminder that when on eLynah the safe bet is always assume that the person is being pedantic. I am restraining myself from pedantically pointing out the ways that your solution would also affect the kids.

ugarte

KeithK

ugarte
Let's be clear about where this discussion has gone, unless you are being pedantic in your response to me: you are saying that it is more reasonable to FIRE one or more people for a scheduling snafu - people who may have a family to support, etc. - than it is to make a bunch of kids temporarily sad.

Not trying to be pedantic. Just lazy and not reading in any detail what the screw up was. Or at least not thinking about it. While my answer might still be appropriate in some circumstances, I apologize for suggesting that it makes sense here.

This is your periodic reminder that when on eLynah the safe bet is always assume that the person is being pedantic. I am restraining myself from pedantically pointing out the ways that your solution would also affect the kids.

“The power of logical argument is commonly called pedantry by those who have not got it.” -- What Shaw meant to say.

ugarte

KeithK

ugarte

Jim Hyla

ugarte
I have no problem with what the district, Cazenovia or Homer-Cortland did here. Someone has to be the first to get penalized for violating the rule.

The real scandal to me is how apparently easy it is to abuse the game/scrimmage distinction and get high school kids playing a lot of additional full-contact games. The rule is supposed to protect kids from overscheduling - even kids who don't want the protection.

Actually the rule was supposedly monetary, so that some schools wouldn't have to schedule a number of games. I don't think, from what I read, that it ever was to "protect the kids".

My problem was, and is, that you're penalizing the kids for what adults did, and nothing happens to the adults. There has to be a better way.

You can't penalize a school without penalizing the kids. A lot of times you can't arrest a father without penalizing his children. The only reasonable way to punish a school for institutional mistakes will have collateral effects on the students. That doesn't mean you shouldn't feel bad for the kids, but it does mean that wanting "different" punishment is futile.

Not entirely true. You could fire, suspend or fine the individuals who were responsible for the scheduling violation. In the case of a fine this wouldn't impact the kids at all, except in the secondary sense of affecting whether someone was willing to coach hockey under such possible sanctions.

I suspect that the coaches/organizers contracts don't permit this kind of work sanction though.

Let's be clear about where this discussion has gone, unless you are being pedantic in your response to me: you are saying that it is more reasonable to FIRE one or more people for a scheduling snafu - people who may have a family to support, etc. - than it is to make a bunch of kids temporarily sad.

The idea to me is not that we're making a bunch of kids temporarily sad, but how do you punish the adults who made the mistake. The Section III officials felt the only thing they could do was to punish the kids, and to do nothing to the adult(s). The memory for the adults will hopefully be, don't do this again. Although, they could think nothing of it. The memory for the kids will be, we did everything we were supposed to do and we had to pay because our adults screwed up.

Now you (the general you, not the particular you) can say, welcome to the real world, it happens all the time. But just maybe an adult in this situation could come up with a novel answer. If it was the coaches fault, maybe you could reduce his coaching stipend. I don't know the answer, I just know this one doesn't feel right.

Ugarte's right, though, that any punishment will in some ways affect somebody who's innocent. If you fine the adult responsible, his family will have less money; is it fair to take away their Christmas because of what he did? If you fine the school, they'll have less money; is it fair to cut the athletic budget, possibly affecting kids in some other sport entirely, for what the adults did? If you fire the adult(s) responsible, not only will their families be greatly affected, but the hockey team may also be if they have to deal with an interim coach or such.

So the question isn't how to eliminate the effect a punishment has on innocent people, but rather how to make that effect be as temporary and non-serious as possible. Firing somebody doesn't seem like it fits those goals; having students miss a tournament seems reasonable. There may be an even better solution, but I don't think the one they went on is obviously wrong.

ftyuv
Ugarte's right, though, that any punishment will in some ways affect somebody who's innocent. If you fine the adult responsible, his family will have less money; is it fair to take away their Christmas because of what he did? If you fine the school, they'll have less money; is it fair to cut the athletic budget, possibly affecting kids in some other sport entirely, for what the adults did? If you fire the adult(s) responsible, not only will their families be greatly affected, but the hockey team may also be if they have to deal with an interim coach or such.

So the question isn't how to eliminate the effect a punishment has on innocent people, but rather how to make that effect be as temporary and non-serious as possible. Firing somebody doesn't seem like it fits those goals; having students miss a tournament seems reasonable. There may be an even better solution, but I don't think the one they went on is obviously wrong.

Since the kids did nothing wrong, and the adult(s) responsible did (if we can even pin this on one or more adults), I'd rather punish them. In the case of, say, a fine, then yeah, his or her family will have less money. But that logic could be used to argue against any fine, ever.

I'm not really sure of a better way to punish people. Beatings are frowned upon. Maybe a very, very, very stern talking to? Force them to watch bad movies?

Force them to watch every power play we have had this year? That's punishment in itself.

Dafatone

ftyuv
Ugarte's right, though, that any punishment will in some ways affect somebody who's innocent. If you fine the adult responsible, his family will have less money; is it fair to take away their Christmas because of what he did? If you fine the school, they'll have less money; is it fair to cut the athletic budget, possibly affecting kids in some other sport entirely, for what the adults did? If you fire the adult(s) responsible, not only will their families be greatly affected, but the hockey team may also be if they have to deal with an interim coach or such.

So the question isn't how to eliminate the effect a punishment has on innocent people, but rather how to make that effect be as temporary and non-serious as possible. Firing somebody doesn't seem like it fits those goals; having students miss a tournament seems reasonable. There may be an even better solution, but I don't think the one they went on is obviously wrong.

Since the kids did nothing wrong, and the adult(s) responsible did (if we can even pin this on one or more adults), I'd rather punish them. In the case of, say, a fine, then yeah, his or her family will have less money. But that logic could be used to argue against any fine, ever.

I'm not really sure of a better way to punish people. Beatings are frowned upon. Maybe a very, very, very stern talking to? Force them to watch bad movies?

It is an institutional error so the kids affiliated with the school are going to take it on the chin. That's how this works. When Penn State ignored a rapist preying on kids for decades, the athletes in 2012 bore the penalty along with the school. The students suffer because THE SCHOOL is not allowed to benefit after being found guilty of breaking the rules. Unless you want to let the kids play as an unaffiliated group of ruffians,* they can't compete in the playoffs. Stop being babies about this.


* This is a stupid idea.

ugarte

Dafatone

ftyuv
Ugarte's right, though, that any punishment will in some ways affect somebody who's innocent. If you fine the adult responsible, his family will have less money; is it fair to take away their Christmas because of what he did? If you fine the school, they'll have less money; is it fair to cut the athletic budget, possibly affecting kids in some other sport entirely, for what the adults did? If you fire the adult(s) responsible, not only will their families be greatly affected, but the hockey team may also be if they have to deal with an interim coach or such.

So the question isn't how to eliminate the effect a punishment has on innocent people, but rather how to make that effect be as temporary and non-serious as possible. Firing somebody doesn't seem like it fits those goals; having students miss a tournament seems reasonable. There may be an even better solution, but I don't think the one they went on is obviously wrong.

Since the kids did nothing wrong, and the adult(s) responsible did (if we can even pin this on one or more adults), I'd rather punish them. In the case of, say, a fine, then yeah, his or her family will have less money. But that logic could be used to argue against any fine, ever.

I'm not really sure of a better way to punish people. Beatings are frowned upon. Maybe a very, very, very stern talking to? Force them to watch bad movies?

It is an institutional error so the kids affiliated with the school are going to take it on the chin. That's how this works. When Penn State ignored a rapist preying on kids for decades, the athletes in 2012 bore the penalty along with the school. The students suffer because THE SCHOOL is not allowed to benefit after being found guilty of breaking the rules. Unless you want to let the kids play as an unaffiliated group of ruffians,* they can't compete in the playoffs. Stop being babies about this.


* This is a stupid idea.

Wow thanks, at last I now know that I'm the oldest baby around. Guess what, I can take a difference of opinion. The Penn State analogy doesn't quite hold up since the institution got penalized, the adults got penalized, and yes, unfortunately because of penalizing the institution some students also had to take it. The difference here was the entire penalty went to the non-responsible party. Hopefully you can see the difference; if not, then I guess I'm through with this.

Ugarte is right. It may sound good -- "why should the kids suffer for what adults did to screw up" -- but implementing adults-only punishment is close to impossible.

Dafatone, via paraphrasing
Since A did nothing wrong, and B did..., I'd rather punish B. In the case of, say, a fine, then yeah, C will [also suffer]. But that logic could be used to argue against any [punishment], ever.

This is kinda my point, actually. There is always a C that suffers in some way when you punish B, so you can't use that as an excuse not to punish B unless you never punish anyone. The argument against cancelling the tournament essentially boils down to adding a constraint that A != C. So my question really comes down to, why is that a necessary constraint?

Edit: I should add that in my eyes, banning the school from participating in the tournament hurts the school, coaches and other staff in addition to the students. Maybe that's the source of the disagreement -- some people don't view this as hurting anyone except the students.

toddlose
Force them to watch every power play we have had this year? That's punishment in itself.

+1

Jim Hyla

ugarte

Dafatone

ftyuv
Ugarte's right, though, that any punishment will in some ways affect somebody who's innocent. If you fine the adult responsible, his family will have less money; is it fair to take away their Christmas because of what he did? If you fine the school, they'll have less money; is it fair to cut the athletic budget, possibly affecting kids in some other sport entirely, for what the adults did? If you fire the adult(s) responsible, not only will their families be greatly affected, but the hockey team may also be if they have to deal with an interim coach or such.

So the question isn't how to eliminate the effect a punishment has on innocent people, but rather how to make that effect be as temporary and non-serious as possible. Firing somebody doesn't seem like it fits those goals; having students miss a tournament seems reasonable. There may be an even better solution, but I don't think the one they went on is obviously wrong.

Since the kids did nothing wrong, and the adult(s) responsible did (if we can even pin this on one or more adults), I'd rather punish them. In the case of, say, a fine, then yeah, his or her family will have less money. But that logic could be used to argue against any fine, ever.

I'm not really sure of a better way to punish people. Beatings are frowned upon. Maybe a very, very, very stern talking to? Force them to watch bad movies?

It is an institutional error so the kids affiliated with the school are going to take it on the chin. That's how this works. When Penn State ignored a rapist preying on kids for decades, the athletes in 2012 bore the penalty along with the school. The students suffer because THE SCHOOL is not allowed to benefit after being found guilty of breaking the rules. Unless you want to let the kids play as an unaffiliated group of ruffians,* they can't compete in the playoffs. Stop being babies about this.


* This is a stupid idea.

Wow thanks, at last I now know that I'm the oldest baby around. Guess what, I can take a difference of opinion. The Penn State analogy doesn't quite hold up since the institution got penalized, the adults got penalized, and yes, unfortunately because of penalizing the institution some students also had to take it. The difference here was the entire penalty went to the non-responsible party. Hopefully you can see the difference; if not, then I guess I'm through with this.

Do you think the coaches don't want to coach in the playoffs? That the administrators didn't want to see the school advance? The penalty went to THE SCHOOL. The SCHOOL can not advance into the playoffs. The students AT THAT SCHOOL suffer along with THE SCHOOL.

ftyuv

Dafatone, via paraphrasing
Since A did nothing wrong, and B did..., I'd rather punish B. In the case of, say, a fine, then yeah, C will [also suffer]. But that logic could be used to argue against any [punishment], ever.

This is kinda my point, actually. There is always a C that suffers in some way when you punish B, so you can't use that as an excuse not to punish B unless you never punish anyone. The argument against cancelling the tournament essentially boils down to adding a constraint that A != C. So my question really comes down to, why is that a necessary constraint?

Edit: I should add that in my eyes, banning the school from participating in the tournament hurts the school, coaches and other staff in addition to the students. Maybe that's the source of the disagreement -- some people don't view this as hurting anyone except the students.

If the rule is "no tournament if you play in too many games," and the school played in too many games, then yeah, no tournament. But I still think they should find the person(s) responsible and punish them separately, by making them write "I will not schedule a 21st game" 100 times on a blackboard or something.

Dafatone

ftyuv

Dafatone, via paraphrasing
Since A did nothing wrong, and B did..., I'd rather punish B. In the case of, say, a fine, then yeah, C will [also suffer]. But that logic could be used to argue against any [punishment], ever.

This is kinda my point, actually. There is always a C that suffers in some way when you punish B, so you can't use that as an excuse not to punish B unless you never punish anyone. The argument against cancelling the tournament essentially boils down to adding a constraint that A != C. So my question really comes down to, why is that a necessary constraint?

Edit: I should add that in my eyes, banning the school from participating in the tournament hurts the school, coaches and other staff in addition to the students. Maybe that's the source of the disagreement -- some people don't view this as hurting anyone except the students.

If the rule is "no tournament if you play in too many games," and the school played in too many games, then yeah, no tournament. But I still think they should find the person(s) responsible and punish them separately, by making them write "I will not schedule a 21st game" 100 times on a blackboard or something.

Sure, but that seems like a punishment the school can/should dole out to the people responsible, as additional punishment and retribution (as it were) for the punishment that the school suffered due to their actions.

League punishes school, school punishes coach. That sounds right to me.

I agree with Jim and others who think the advisory panel could have come up with something a little less drastic, considering the infraction was relatively minor, and was arguably due to a misunderstanding between the coaches of the teams involved in the "non-scrimmage." For example, perhaps the panel could have allowed the team to play in the playoffs, but moved them down to the lowest seed, or made them play all their games on the road or something along those lines.

The biggest issue for me is how little time and thought the board put into this, as evidenced by the following:

---
The hearing began at about 1 p.m. and lasted for about 30 minutes. The advisory panel then met in closed executive session for about 10 minutes. The decision was announced about 5:30 p.m.
---

Ten minutes? That alone is pretty insulting, and doesn't show a great deal of effort on the part of the panel.

andyw2100
I agree with Jim and others who think the advisory panel could have come up with something a little less drastic, considering the infraction was relatively minor, and was arguably due to a misunderstanding between the coaches of the teams involved in the "non-scrimmage." For example, perhaps the panel could have allowed the team to play in the playoffs, but moved them down to the lowest seed, or made them play all their games on the road or something along those lines.

The biggest issue for me is how little time and thought the board put into this, as evidenced by the following:

---
The hearing began at about 1 p.m. and lasted for about 30 minutes. The advisory panel then met in closed executive session for about 10 minutes. The decision was announced about 5:30 p.m.
---

Ten minutes? That alone is pretty insulting, and doesn't show a great deal of effort on the part of the panel.

They were late for puppy stomping.

andyw2100
I agree with Jim and others who think the advisory panel could have come up with something a little less drastic, considering the infraction was relatively minor, and was arguably due to a misunderstanding between the coaches of the teams involved in the "non-scrimmage." For example, perhaps the panel could have allowed the team to play in the playoffs, but moved them down to the lowest seed, or made them play all their games on the road or something along those lines.

Penalties for this kind of infraction are not just about punishing the wrongdoers. They're also about incentivizing future behavior. If the only penalty is a lower seed in the tournament that may not be much of a disincentive for someone to do it again. Maybe a coach thinks playing more games is more valuable than seeding for his squad.

billhoward
Ugarte is right. It may sound good -- "why should the kids suffer for what adults did to screw up" -- but implementing adults-only punishment is close to impossible.

There are always collateral effects. You'd like to minimize them but just because there are some side effects doesn't mean one shouldn't act.

The question here isn't whether you cn punish the adults without hurting the kids at all but whether the penalty punishes the adults at all. Some make reasonable arguments that it does. I'm not sure.

every coach knows the rules and every coach knows how many games they can play. FM knew full well they were pushing the limits

KeithK

andyw2100
I agree with Jim and others who think the advisory panel could have come up with something a little less drastic, considering the infraction was relatively minor, and was arguably due to a misunderstanding between the coaches of the teams involved in the "non-scrimmage." For example, perhaps the panel could have allowed the team to play in the playoffs, but moved them down to the lowest seed, or made them play all their games on the road or something along those lines.

Penalties for this kind of infraction are not just about punishing the wrongdoers. They're also about incentivizing future behavior. If the only penalty is a lower seed in the tournament that may not be much of a disincentive for someone to do it again. Maybe a coach thinks playing more games is more valuable than seeding for his squad.

That's a fair point Keith. But in this case, since it is so easy for a coach to game the system by just making sure the contest qualifies as a scrimmage, and with there apparently being no limitation on the number of these scrimmages, I think all the panel would be incentivising is a more thorough gaming of the system.

And it's this loophole that apparently lets teams play as many contests as they want, as long as no more than 20 are actually "games" that makes me think the penalty was too harsh. I would feel very differently if the rule was something like no more than 20 games and no more than three scrimmages and this was the team's 24th contest, as in that case the violation might have been more meaningful. But in this case the violation would not have been a violation if a couple of "I"s were dotted and "T"s crossed. I guess what I'm getting at is that it was so easy to get around the intent of the rule, that the penalty for not getting around it should not be this severe.

Does that make sense?

F-M hockey team loses it's court appeal. The players, including Anthony Angello, discuss the season.

Jim Hyla
F-M hockey team loses it's court appeal. The players, including Anthony Angello, discuss the season.

The article says that Angello is transferring for his senior season. Does anyone know where he is going?

Jim Hyla
F-M hockey team loses it's court appeal. The players, including Anthony Angello, discuss the season.

Although the blog didn't specify, presumably the "appeal" as they called it was an Article 78 proceeding, which is the mechanism New York State gives its citizens to take a state or local agency to court over actions or decisions it made affecting the citizens. If it was an Article 78, it's not in the least surprising to me that the judge didn't even leave his bench to make the decision. The bar for an Article 78 is pretty high; the petitioner has to demonstrate that the agency's action was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion. Although many of us may disagree with the Section III panel's ruling, I don't think anybody here believes it was illegal or defied logic.