Ravenswood

The Wetzel Chronicle featured a letter from one Mary Martin of Ravenswood taking Magnolia High School students to task for rude behavior. I have a couple nephews who play for Magnolia. I saw two games this year. I cannot say that I ever saw students do anything even remotely rude. The adults, however, are a different matter. The referees never do quite a good enough job and I think they're sometimes a little bit hard on their own kids. It's just a game, shouldn't they be having fun?

I have seen some very bad behavior at high school athletic events. It is almost always from the parents and other fans.

I had a graduate of Wahama High School tell me he once played a football game at Buffalo High School and both the athletes and the fans displayed horrible behavior.....foul language and the like. I attended every home football game at BHS this year and the only bad sportsmanship I witnessed was from an opposing team and their fans out of Ohio. I can't recall the school at the moment.

Another thing I have noticed is that people from other areas of the county say very negative things about BHS, particularly those from the Poca & Winfield HS areas. Some people take this stuff way too seriously and in doing so take away much of the "fun" in high school competitions, athletic and otherwise.

Negative things about the school or the students?

I've said them about the rat trap they call a school but then I was saying that 25 years ago when I was a student at Hamlin, long before I moved to Poca. I don't say that about the students as I know many of them, along with their parents.

Buffalo and Poca make up North Putnam Little League and are closely tied in football and biddy basketball. GW middle school's kids go to both Poca and Buffalo. Your football coach got his start at Poca Middle School (Yes, it's PMS). These two schools and their students are tied together in many ways.

I would be greatly interested in what you mean in your previous statement.

Aaron, do you remember Hot Rod Hainey? I probably spelled it wrong.

What's the buzz in the Valley about the South Charleston fiasco? Hear anything about Duran Workman of GW?

Hot Rod Hundley that played at WVU?

I'm not sure about the Workman kid from GW. I don't follow them much.

The SC thing has cooled for a few days, mostly because the Gazette censors every post before allowing them online so most of the vile stuff never makes in online. I'm sure once the Supreme Court makes a decision, it will heat back up.

My only comment about this whole debacle is that the Kanawha County Court now appears to feature amateur hour. At least that's all that comes to mind with all of Carrie Webster's rulings. This is not a judicial matter.

Stephanie wrote:My only comment about this whole debacle is that the Kanawha County Court now appears to feature amateur hour. At least that's all that comes to mind with all of Carrie Webster's rulings. This is not a judicial matter.

Sure it is Stephanie. The officials clearly violated at least 2 SSAC rules and erred in their judgment, ejected at least one player from South Charleston that shouldn’t have been ejected and never ejected the kid who threw the first punch.

The West Virginia Supreme Court has stated in at least two rulings, Oakley and Mayo that SSAC decisions cannot be challenged unless they are arbitrary and capricious. In this instance they were both arbitrary and capricious as the ejections occurred AFTER the game ended and notification was sent nearly 48 hours after the ejections, 24 hours past the SSAC deadline and AFTER officials reviewed video tape which is against rules as well.

Additionally, at least one of the students was likely innocent meaning he shouldn't have been ejected and at least two of the students could very easily lose full ride athletic scholarships which most definitely would have grave consequences for the affected parties, the major stipulation for a judge granting a TRO.

If you read Judge Webster’s decision and understand the SSAC and National Federation of High Schools Association rules then you can easily see that she was dead on in her ruling unless of course you have no problem with those who have authority over children possessing unchecked and unquestionable control of all that is said and done.

I've followed this case pretty closely for a couple of reasons-it was one choice for a position essay for English-and the Parkways Authority tolling route 35 and to be honest, their are way too many similarities between the two.

I would appear that the WVSC agrees with me, Aaron.

Supreme Court reverses Webster's ruling; Brooke and Martinsburg in championship

I knew that's what they would decide. And they, like you, are wrong. I read the Mayo case in which the SSAC said the ONLY time one could challenge the SSAC is if the SSAC acted in a capricious or arbitrary manner. The SSAC violated two of their own rules to suspend these 4 players. Two rules written in black and white with no debate as to what they mean was COMPLETELY ignored by the SSAC. It’s as if they said “We know we are supposed to act in this manner but it doesn’t benefit what we want to do so were going to change the rules” and they did. If that’s not capricious or arbitrary, I don’t know what is.

So Judge Webster met the definition of what the West Virginia State Supreme Court said two years ago and like the SSAC, the Supreme Court said, wait, we’re going to change the rules in mid-stream. If you read the Supreme Court decision from the Mayo case, what it boils down to is the Supreme Court doesn’t want to open SSAC decision up to judicial review because they’re afraid if the do, legal defense cost for the SSAC will skyrocket, thus they grant an organization funded with tax payer dollars about the same amount of authority as Joseph Stalin or Adolph Hitler.

And here’s the kicker. The organization that you feel should not be subject to the same scrutiny that the principal at Buffalo High School is, who’s judgments, rulings and rules can NEVER be questioned, by anyone has an annual budget somewhere between 3 and 3.5 million dollars. And did I mention, that’s our tax dollars that is being subtracted from educational spending and redirected for sports.

Congratulations. The Supreme Court agreed with you but then there were those who said the same thing regarding the Dred Scott decision.

Look, the principal at BHS is a brain-dead twit.

This is high school athletics. The SSAC is the governing body. I do not believe it is in the best interest of the taxpayers to allow disgruntled athletes, coaches, and/or parents to haul them to court when something doesn't go their way. It's too expensive. I never once claimed the decision to suspend these particular players was correct. What I am telling you is it is not a very good idea to for the courts to intervene and supecede their authority.

I'm unfamiliar with the make up of that board and how they are appointed. Obviously there are some issues with this group and I expect the coaches and school administrators will be clamouring for changes. I believe that is the better avenue to address problems.....fix the SSAC, not sue them.

I am unfamiliar with the Mayo case.

For someone unfamiliar, you seem to have no problem with expressing your incorrect opinion but it is nice to know that it's ok to usurp the law if it's in the interest of saving money.

Nice.

One case is not the law, Aaron.

This is high school sports. It should be kept in perspective. Sadly, it seldom is.

A Lawsuit to stop the SBA from funding the Consolidation of a school made it up to the WVSC and ....... it agreed with the Plaintiff that the SBA did in fact "violate the Law ........... and they better not do it again", ....... judgement for the Defendent, they can proceed with the Consolidation, case closed.

Stephanie wrote:One case is not the law, Aaron.

This is high school sports. It should be kept in perspective. Sadly, it seldom is.

Therein lies the problem. Too many people think it's just sports thus it's blown out of perspective. I understand it from a lot of people but I thought you were smarter then that Stephanie. Sadly, I'm wrong. I never though you would be one that would have no problem with a court of law ignoring the law, changing the law and basing those decisions on saving money.

What law was ignored, Aaron? You're insisting that a previous ruling in another case created a new law, are you not?

I'm not at all surprised at the uproar this has caused given local news broadcasts are abbreviated on Friday nights just to talk about high school football games. Before moving here I had no idea community took high school football that seriously outside of Texas.

If you want to know what concerns me, and I believe should concern everyone, is the PCSB's new rule requiring submission to random drug screening for participation in any high school extracurricular activity and to park at school. This is to be expanded to the middle school level next year. Now that I consider a serious violation of liberty, privacy, and parental authority.

Stephanie wrote:What law was ignored, Aaron? You're insisting that a previous ruling in another case created a new law, are you not?

It created precedent that set forth guidelines in which a student could challenge the WVSSAC. This case fell within those guidelines thus the TRO was valid, the kids should not have been suspended by the WVSSAC and the Supreme Court was wrong in their ruling. Judge Webster was within the guidelines set forth by the West Virginia Supreme Court and should not have been overruled.

Stephanie wrote:I'm not at all surprised at the uproar this has caused given local news broadcasts are abbreviated on Friday nights just to talk about high school football games. Before moving here I had no idea community took high school football that seriously outside of Texas.

This is more then just sports and the fact that you continue to express that opinion despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary concerns me somewhat. I thought you were a reasonable person. In a similar situation in the mid 1990's, local school board in Veronia, Oregon instilled a random drug testing program for athletes which was subsequently challenged in the court system. At the time, the consensus opinion in and around Oregon and the nation was “What’s the big deal, it’s just athletes and sports” similar to what you've stated here.

Stephanie wrote:If you want to know what concerns me, and I believe should concern everyone, is the PCSB's new rule requiring submission to random drug screening for participation in any high school extracurricular activity and to park at school. This is to be expanded to the middle school level next year. Now that I consider a serious violation of liberty, privacy, and parental authority.

The United States Supreme Court doesn't agree with you Stephanie

See, you are using a single case and calling that law. Presedence does not make law. Sometimes courts and judges make mistakes and if that happens sometimes the error is corrected in a future case.

SCOTUS also decided Kelo vs the City of New London. I don't believe in SCOTUS infallibility.

You don't get it Stephanie. You think it's "just sports" and as such, like so many people have your mind made up. The problem is with "just sports" argument is that sooner or later, someone comes along and uses decisions like this as a basis for something like mandator drug testing for students.

You're wrong about this decision and the reason you're wrong is because you're not knowledgeable of all the facts. Until you're willing to learn the facts to the case and then express an opinion based on fact, you're just chasing your tail in circles.

You got anything else or are you just going to keep spouting the same tired argument of "it's just sports?"

Stephanie wrote:

SCOTUS also decided Kelo vs the City of New London. I don't believe in SCOTUS infallibility.

Unless of course it supporst your argument, right!!!

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:

SCOTUS also decided Kelo vs the City of New London. I don't believe in SCOTUS infallibility.

Unless of course it supporst your argument, right!!!

No. I do accept that they have the final word, until the next time they decide to intervene on a specific issue. I just don't always like it.

Aaron wrote:You don't get it Stephanie. You think it's "just sports" and as such, like so many people have your mind made up. The problem is with "just sports" argument is that sooner or later, someone comes along and uses decisions like this as a basis for something like mandator drug testing for students.

You're wrong about this decision and the reason you're wrong is because you're not knowledgeable of all the facts. Until you're willing to learn the facts to the case and then express an opinion based on fact, you're just chasing your tail in circles.

You got anything else or are you just going to keep spouting the same tired argument of "it's just sports?"

It isn't a "just sports" argument. Until someone can demonstrate otherwise, WV code states that the SSAC has jurisdiction over high school athletics. This includes but is not limited to disciplinary action against student football players. The fact that some other judge or some previous court erroneously ruled otherwise does not negate the law.

The previous court was the West Virginia Supreme Court. You don't know the facts as you've displayed AND admitted.

I knew it was the WVSC, Aaron. That doesn't mean they were correct. Obviously you disagree with their ruling this time, so that means you don't think they're infalllible. Why do you expect me to?

The only thing I expect from you is consistency Stephanie and you've been anything but on this thread. You've jumped the fence so much that if you were a man, I'd tell you to watch your nuts cause your gonna land on the fence sooner or later.

The sworn duty of Judges and Justices are to interpret the original intent of the Law and apply said when rendering their decision, ...... not to re-write the Law to what they want it to read ...... nor to create new Laws and Statutes (Legislate from the Bench) to appease their own personal biases.

To do anything other than what their sworn duty is ........ is in effect an act of "selective prosecution", ....... which in effect, ..... trashes The Rule of Law.




.