Washed_Up_Athlete Posted August 4, 2023 Author Share Posted August 4, 2023 The MAIS recruiting rule states that, "The recruiting and/or undue influence of a student-athlete of a MAIS member school by anyone directly or indirectly associated with another member school shall result in said school being placed on probation, and not being eligible for the championship in all sports for a period of one (1) year. In addition, a fine in the amount of $500.00 shall be assessed the school in violation. Further, such recruiting and/or undue influence shall cause the student-athlete to be ineligible for one (1) year if he or she transfers. Recruiting and/or undue influence would include (but not be limited to) a student-athlete receiving merchandise such as clothing and equipment and/or moneys for the individual's expenditures." There are a few things that stand out from the Hartfield ruling when you consider the text of the rule. First, the ruling only makes Hartfield's football team ineligible for the championship. But the rule says the offending school "shall" not be eligible for a championship "in all sports." It doesn't say "may not." It seems like the MAIS exercised discretion to limit Hartfield's punishment when it didn't have discretion to do so. Second, the rule says that "such recruiting and/or undue influence shall cause the student-athlete to be ineligible for one (1) year if he or she transfers." Vaughn transferred, but the MAIS didn't rule him ineligible. Again, it seems like the MAIS exercised discretion to limit the punishment when it didn't have such discretion. Third, the rule says the fine is $500. The MAIS fined Hartfield $7500. This implies Hartfield violated the rule 15 times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longhorn75 Posted August 5, 2023 Share Posted August 5, 2023 19 hours ago, Washed_Up_Athlete said: The MAIS recruiting rule states that, "The recruiting and/or undue influence of a student-athlete of a MAIS member school by anyone directly or indirectly associated with another member school shall result in said school being placed on probation, and not being eligible for the championship in all sports for a period of one (1) year. In addition, a fine in the amount of $500.00 shall be assessed the school in violation. Further, such recruiting and/or undue influence shall cause the student-athlete to be ineligible for one (1) year if he or she transfers. Recruiting and/or undue influence would include (but not be limited to) a student-athlete receiving merchandise such as clothing and equipment and/or moneys for the individual's expenditures." There are a few things that stand out from the Hartfield ruling when you consider the text of the rule. First, the ruling only makes Hartfield's football team ineligible for the championship. But the rule says the offending school "shall" not be eligible for a championship "in all sports." It doesn't say "may not." It seems like the MAIS exercised discretion to limit Hartfield's punishment when it didn't have discretion to do so. Second, the rule says that "such recruiting and/or undue influence shall cause the student-athlete to be ineligible for one (1) year if he or she transfers." Vaughn transferred, but the MAIS didn't rule him ineligible. Again, it seems like the MAIS exercised discretion to limit the punishment when it didn't have such discretion. Third, the rule says the fine is $500. The MAIS fined Hartfield $7500. This implies Hartfield violated the rule 15 times. Yes I remember when MRA got hit with sanctions in 94, the baseball team was in the playoffs when the announcement came and they were ruled ineligible and had to forfeit. I am curious who the other 14 violations are, if they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Washed_Up_Athlete Posted August 16, 2023 Author Share Posted August 16, 2023 While I have not seen a copy of a decision, the rumor is that Hartfield's appeal was denied yesterday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maroontide06 Posted August 16, 2023 Share Posted August 16, 2023 26 minutes ago, Washed_Up_Athlete said: While I have not seen a copy of a decision, the rumor is that Hartfield's appeal was denied yesterday. I think the title of this thread could be misleading. Can they play football at all like they did last week or do they have to shut it down completely? If not, do they just have a playoff ban? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Bert Posted August 16, 2023 Share Posted August 16, 2023 13 minutes ago, maroontide06 said: I think the title of this thread could be misleading. Can they play football at all like they did last week or do they have to shut it down completely? If not, do they just have a playoff ban? Play the season with no playoffs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maroontide06 Posted August 16, 2023 Share Posted August 16, 2023 Just now, Rebel Bert said: Play the season with no playoffs Ok, that's what I thought. Thanks for the clarification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maroontide06 Posted August 16, 2023 Share Posted August 16, 2023 Here's another line of thought. Will Hartfield play the potential MAIS champion in their classification during the regular season? If so, does Hartfield run the table and finish the season undefeated? Now if they lose some games it probably won't leave any controversy, but if they go undefeated and beat the team that goes on to win the MAIS championship or even the team that finishes runner-up, do they pull a UCF and claim one anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1nglewing Posted August 16, 2023 Share Posted August 16, 2023 6 minutes ago, maroontide06 said: Here's another line of thought. Will Hartfield play the potential MAIS champion in their classification during the regular season? If so, does Hartfield run the table and finish the season undefeated? Now if they lose some games it probably won't leave any controversy, but if they go undefeated and beat the team that goes on to win the MAIS championship or even the team that finishes runner-up, do they pull a UCF and claim one anyway? I suppose they could pretend, but looking at them last Friday I think it's pretty unlikely that scenario plays out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maroontide06 Posted August 16, 2023 Share Posted August 16, 2023 8 minutes ago, s1nglewing said: I suppose they could pretend, but looking at them last Friday I think it's pretty unlikely that scenario plays out. If Heritage would have had some horses on offense, they could have made that game very interesting because it was only 9-0 at halftime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Washed_Up_Athlete Posted August 16, 2023 Author Share Posted August 16, 2023 (edited) You're right. I should have done a better job with the title of the thread. The penalty is a postseason ban, asst. coaches banned from in-game coaching, and a fine. I edited the title to be more accurate. Regarding how Hartfield will do against the other 6A schools, we should all wait a few weeks before making a confident judgment. Every team should improve and it is SO HOT that it is impacting everyone's performance and stamina. That said, Jackson Prep is considered the preseason favorite. Prep plays its first game on Friday versus Copiah. Edited August 17, 2023 by Washed_Up_Athlete Title of thread was inaccurate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ogwarriorbandman Posted August 17, 2023 Share Posted August 17, 2023 Everything I have seen or heard is MRA is the preseason favorite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Washed_Up_Athlete Posted August 17, 2023 Author Share Posted August 17, 2023 14 hours ago, ogwarriorbandman said: Everything I have seen or heard is MRA is the preseason favorite. https://www.maxpreps.com/ms/football/rankings/1/ - Prep at 10; MRA at 14 in combined MHSAA/MAIS poll http://calpreps.com/cgi-bin/2023/preview_viewer_league.pl?number=1&league=Mississippi:_MAIS_6A_District_1: Prep at 1; MRA at 2 In fairness, the CL and Chris Brooks' publication have MRA at 1, but I don't place as much stock in them as I do the above. In any event, it doesn't really matter. All of the 6A teams will play each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoWammies Posted August 28, 2023 Share Posted August 28, 2023 Appeal granted and are now eligible for the playoffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1nglewing Posted August 28, 2023 Share Posted August 28, 2023 3 minutes ago, NoWammies said: Appeal granted and are now eligible for the playoffs. Link? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoWammies Posted August 28, 2023 Share Posted August 28, 2023 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Washed_Up_Athlete Posted August 29, 2023 Author Share Posted August 29, 2023 Interesting. I wonder what the basis of the reversal is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1nglewing Posted August 29, 2023 Share Posted August 29, 2023 24 minutes ago, Washed_Up_Athlete said: Interesting. I wonder what the basis of the reversal is? Especially considering the vote for the sanctions was unanimous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Bert Posted August 29, 2023 Share Posted August 29, 2023 The team and coaches are fully reinstated on the grounds that alleged dates of said violations did not match up with the video or picture taking dates. So I was told according to what was told Friday night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Washed_Up_Athlete Posted August 29, 2023 Author Share Posted August 29, 2023 3 hours ago, Rebel Bert said: The team and coaches are fully reinstated on the grounds that alleged dates of said violations did not match up with the video or picture taking dates. So I was told according to what was told Friday night. That seems strange. Some person took the video. That person can say when he/she took it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1nglewing Posted August 29, 2023 Share Posted August 29, 2023 16 minutes ago, Washed_Up_Athlete said: That seems strange. Some person took the video. That person can say when he/she took it. So the time stamps didn't match but the illegal behavior occurred. Hmm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pancho Posted August 29, 2023 Share Posted August 29, 2023 aw lawd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.