[Redneck]

Blackcat/Guru,

I appologize if I misinterpreted the comments.

I thought that Guru said he would forbid the kid (involved in the discussion) from being near the football field.


I do not know the situation or anyone involved. Reading through the posts if sounds to me like many people are saying that they do not particularly like the dad involved with this transfer. It also sounds as if many hope the kid losses his eligibility. Other statements seem to infer that if the child returned to the original school due to the eligibilty issue , the new coach should not let him play.

My point of emphasis is that the KHSAA should play no role in this matter. The child should go to school where ever his parents want to send him. As with most of the KHSAA rules, the transfer rule is probably not constitutional. As a minimum it is not consistant across the state because several schools have open districts. Ultimately, the only one that is damaged is the child.

The recruiting rule (Section 10) covers everything that should play any role in a situation like this. The tranfer rule should be eliminated.




My second point of emphasis is that in the event the child returns to his old school, the coaches personal feelings about the father should not affect the manner in which he treats the son. Additionaly, the father has every right to be in the football stadium regardless of what the coach thinks.


The child's welfare is really the only thing that should matter. Petty arguments and fusses between the adults involved are meaningless.

The KHSAA plays a role in every other transfer situation, why should this be any different.