Anthony Angello and team disqualified by scheduling error

Started by flyersgolf, February 17, 2013, 03:20:55 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

flyersgolf

Cornell recruit has high school season abruptly stopped.  


http://highschoolsports.syracuse.com/news/article/5004876394743495124/section-iii-denies-fayetteville-manlius-plea-to-let-hockey-team-back-in-playoffs/undefined/





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
CU '87  PSU '95

Jim Hyla

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...
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005

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.

Jim Hyla

Quote from: TrotskyThis 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.
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005

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.

Jim Hyla

Quote from: ugarteI 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.
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005

ugarte

Quote from: Jim Hyla
Quote from: ugarteI 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.

KeithK

Quote from: ugarte
Quote from: Jim Hyla
Quote from: ugarteI 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.

ugarte

Quote from: KeithK
Quote from: ugarte
Quote from: Jim Hyla
Quote from: ugarteI 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.

KeithK

Quote from: ugarteLet'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.

ugarte

Quote from: KeithK
Quote from: ugarteLet'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.

Trotsky

Quote from: ugarte
Quote from: KeithK
Quote from: ugarteLet'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.

Jim Hyla

Quote from: ugarte
Quote from: KeithK
Quote from: ugarte
Quote from: Jim Hyla
Quote from: ugarteI 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.
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005

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.

Dafatone

Quote from: ftyuvUgarte'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?