UIL Looks at CROCKETT vs NEWTON

[NOTWENS]

good lets move on and reload for next year

[MEM]

[quote name="invictus" post="1127146" timestamp="1321936270"]
It is parents who want to be their child's friend instead of their parent.  It is parents who allow their teenagers to be out at all times of the day and night.  Parents who do not teach their children respect and to have consideration for other people.  It is parents who do not set a good example for their children.
[/quote]

Bingo....However it seems that the PC thing to do in todays society is to do exactly the above....Don't want to tell the kids NO because it might harm their self esteem and creativity! ::)

[invictus]

[quote name="MEM" post="1127410" timestamp="1321979745"]
[quote author=invictus link=topic=92048.msg1127146#msg1127146 date=1321936270]
It is parents who want to be their child's friend instead of their parent.  It is parents who allow their teenagers to be out at all times of the day and night.  Parents who do not teach their children respect and to have consideration for other people.  It is parents who do not set a good example for their children.
[/quote]

Bingo....However it seems that the PC thing to do in todays society is to do exactly the above....Don't want to tell the kids NO because it might harm their self esteem and creativity! ::)
[/quote]

That's because people don't know how to really build their child's self-esteem.  You build a child's self-esteem from birth.  You don't leave them to cry themselves to sleep alone.  You don't prop a bottle up for an infant to feed themselves.  My kids know that no matter how much correction they receive from us, that we still love them and will always be there for them.  And they've never once been spanked.  And you will not see them will a cell phone at 13 or a computer with free reign of the internet or dropped off at the mall by themselves as a teenager.

Kids need an example and a guide of how to be as they grow.  Too many people do not provide that.

[atb63]

[quote name="WB1993" post="1126851" timestamp="1321923529"]
[quote author=Mr. Buddy Garrity link=topic=92048.msg1126843#msg1126843 date=1321923123]
That was Katy who had to forfeit in 98. And Katy woulda got a 50 spot hung on them also. That was Benson's soph year.
[/quote]
what ws Katy's infraction that year? Just wondering,
[/quote]

WB1993, if I remember correctly, I think that it had something to do with the kids receiving T-shirts given by the booster club, or the something to that affect.  In my opinion, it was very petty.  I remember thinking that they robbed those kids.  I think that receiving the t-shirts the way that they received them, for free, was looked upon as recruiting.  It was not anything intentional, from what I remember.  There are so many rules, it's almost impossible to do anything for kids.

However, if it's grades and that kid played in the game, it could cost them because the UIL frowns big time on using ineligible players. 

[WOSgrad]

Here is a little detail on the Katy issue:

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl/1999_3116636/time-for-coaches-to-hit-rule-books-school-year-fra.html

[Guest 58SHW]

I agree with the discipline issue..no doubt!

BUT, I do find it funny how some of the same people on here were "defending" the Ned kids. They were also using social networking and got busted.

Why is it death penalty for some of you when it's "other" places and its just "kids being kids" when it YOUR home town.... ::)

[EastTexasBall]

In case anyone cares here is a link. Doesn't say a whole lot other than they are being investigated.

[url=http://www.kfdm.com/news/crockett-45886-newton-cousins.html]http://www.kfdm.com/news/crockett-45886-newton-cousins.html[/url]

[ChampionEagles]

This has to do with DAEP (in school suspension) and the trashing of a computer room on Friday. Two of Crocketts players were involved and played then bragged about it on Saturday to one of Newton's players on facebook. Now this is what this is about. No names. If it happened like that it is a violation of UIL rules for the kids to have played.

[Guest EagleFan01]

So when will the investigation be over and when will the findings be released?

[ChampionEagles]

Don't know. First step is in house investigation by Crockett as the UIL has stated. Ask AggiesAreWe he seems to know everything about this.

[atb63]

[quote name="WOSgrad" post="1127487" timestamp="1321985958"]
Here is a little detail on the Katy issue:

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl/1999_3116636/time-for-coaches-to-hit-rule-books-school-year-fra.html
[/quote]

"Katy, which earlier in the football season had to forfeit a game for using an ineligible player, drew scrutiny at the end of the district season [b]when players were discovered to have received free T-shirts and meals at a team dinner.[/b] The program was initially assessed three more forfeits, but the forfeits were overturned and the school was placed on probation. However, Katy was booted from the playoffs the day before its scheduled Class 5A Division II state-championship game against Midland Lee after an ineligible player forged a teacher's signature on a three-week progress report to give the impression he had regained eligibility"

Thanks WOSGrad, that's what I was referring to regarding Katy.
I only knew about the T-shirts and dinner incident, I didn't know about the ineligible player.
The T-shirt and dinner incident I thought was petty, and did not warrant forfeiture of games, and I did not know that the forfeitures were overturned.  But I understand the ineligible player.

This does get interesting in the Crokett vs Newton case.

[Guest 58SHW]

[quote name="ChampionEagles" post="1127545" timestamp="1321988076"]
This has to do with DAEP (in school suspension) and the trashing of a computer room on Friday. Two of Crocketts players were involved and played then bragged about it on Saturday to one of Newton's players on facebook. Now this is what this is about. No names. If it happened like that it is a violation of UIL rules for the kids to have played.
[/quote]

So "if" this is the case....some of you say they should forfiet (I agree) (even though it will suck for the innocent kids who did nothing wrong)...however, is it any worse than being drunk and taking pictures on school property (min punishment) and returning to play....or is it different because Ned kids obtained lawyers and got released (before end of said punishment), so no UIL violation could be enforced.....OR...is this completely different because one is local and the other is somewhere else.

[ChampionEagles]

I don't care about Nederland or Nederland kids and what went on there. Beat me on the field legit and I'll take it and go home and try to get better so it won't happen again. Cheat me on the field and I'll never get over it and remember it forever.

[WOSgrad]

While the trashing of school property should be punished, I am not sure how that rises to the level of a UIL infraction if the those involved played in the game.  That sounds like a student code of conduct issue and an internal district matter.

I guess I will look at the rules and see what I can find.

[Guest 58SHW]

[quote name="ChampionEagles" post="1127577" timestamp="1321990559"]
I don't care about Nederland or Nederland kids and what went on there. Beat me on the field legit and I'll take it and go home and try to get better so it won't happen again. Cheat me on the field and I'll never get over it and remember it forever.
[/quote]

Sooo, you dont care if a team plays with ineligibale players, or players who break the rules at school or in society....as long as they are arent cheating ON THE FIELD...ok...I understand...so 19-20-21 year olds can beat your team of choice as long as they play by the football rules during the game....ok...got it!

[ChampionEagles]

Don't put words in my mouth trying to appear to be superior. If they are cheating off the field to play on the field, it's the same as cheating on the field. The kids from Crockett did not misbehave on the field but should not have been there if this is true. Go get a life.

[Guest 58SHW]

[quote name="ChampionEagles" post="1127595" timestamp="1321991702"]
Don't put words in my mouth trying to appear to be superior. If they are cheating off the field to play on the field, it's the same as cheating on the field. The kids from Crockett did not misbehave on the field but should not have been there if this is true. Go get a life.
[/quote]

Wasnt putting words in you mouth, just being sarcastic to make a point. If trashing a classroom is and playing cheating, why would being drunk on school property not be....and you stated you didnt care about Ned or what THEY did....

[ChampionEagles]

Excuse me, I didn't recognize the sarcasm as sarcasm. This is not about Nederland and what went on there. Your trying to make it be. And by the way, I still don't care about Nederland and what went on there. That is for Nederland to deal with.

[Guest 58SHW]

[quote name="ChampionEagles" post="1127604" timestamp="1321992140"]
Excuse me, I didn't recognize the sarcasm as sarcasm. This is not about Nederland and what went on there. Your trying to make it be. And by the way, I still don't care about Nederland and what went on there. That is for Nederland to deal with.
[/quote]

I understand that...because the Ned situation didnt affect you or your community or your football team....if it had, you would more than likely see it differently. I'm only making the point that either A) both teams should be ineligible or B) neither team should be. Theres no difference in the 2 incidents IMO.

[WOSgrad]

Okay, got the answer to my question. I got this from a side by sided on the UIL website (http://www.uiltexas.org/files/tea-uil-side-by-side.pdf)

On Page 10:

"[b][i]5. Are students who are placed in alternative settings for behavioral management eligible for extracurricular
activities?[/i][/b]  Students who are placed in a disciplinary alternative education program (DAEP) for a reason
included in TEC §37.006 must be prohibited from attending or participating in a school-sponsored or schoolrelated
activity as provided by Subsection (g) of that section.
Students placed in a DAEP pursuant to authority under a provision of the TEC other than §37.006 may be
prohibited from participating in school-sponsored or school-related activities by local district policies.
Students who have been assigned to a DAEP for a reason included in TEC §37.006 or those assigned
under a separate section of the TEC and prohibited from participating by local policy, may resume participation
in UIL activities the first day they return to regular classes after completing the assigned length of time in the
alternative education program."

[WOSgrad]

And here is Texas Education Code, Sec. 37.006:

Sec. 37.006.  REMOVAL FOR CERTAIN CONDUCT. (a) A student shall be removed from class and placed in a disciplinary alternative education program as provided by Section 37.008 if the student:

(1)  engages in conduct involving a public school that contains the elements of the offense of false alarm or report under Section 42.06, Penal Code, or terroristic threat under Section 22.07, Penal Code; or

(2)  commits the following on or within 300 feet of school property, as measured from any point on the school's real property boundary line, or while attending a school-sponsored or school-related activity on or off of school property:

(A)  engages in conduct punishable as a felony;

(B)  engages in conduct that contains the elements of the offense of assault under Section 22.01(a)(1), Penal Code;

(C)  sells, gives, or delivers to another person or possesses or uses or is under the influence of:

(i)  marihuana or a controlled substance, as defined by Chapter 481, Health and Safety Code, or by 21 U.S.C. Section 801 et seq.; or

(ii)  a dangerous drug, as defined by Chapter 483, Health and Safety Code;

(D)  sells, gives, or delivers to another person an alcoholic beverage, as defined by Section 1.04, Alcoholic Beverage Code, commits a serious act or offense while under the influence of alcohol, or possesses, uses, or is under the influence of an alcoholic beverage;

(E)  engages in conduct that contains the elements of an offense relating to an abusable volatile chemical under Sections 485.031 through 485.034, Health and Safety Code; or

(F)  engages in conduct that contains the elements of the offense of public lewdness under Section 21.07, Penal Code, or indecent exposure under Section 21.08, Penal Code.

(b)  Except as provided by Section 37.007(d), a student shall be removed from class and placed in a disciplinary alternative education program under Section 37.008 if the student engages in conduct on or off of school property that contains the elements of the offense of retaliation under Section 36.06, Penal Code, against any school employee.

(c)  In addition to Subsections (a) and (b), a student shall be removed from class and placed in a disciplinary alternative education program under Section 37.008 based on conduct occurring off campus and while the student is not in attendance at a school-sponsored or school-related activity if:

(1)  the student receives deferred prosecution under Section 53.03, Family Code, for conduct defined as a felony offense in Title 5, Penal Code;

(2)  a court or jury finds that the student has engaged in delinquent conduct under Section 54.03, Family Code, for conduct defined as a felony offense in Title 5, Penal Code; or

(3)  the superintendent or the superintendent's designee has a reasonable belief that the student has engaged in a conduct defined as a felony offense in Title 5, Penal Code.

(d)  In addition to Subsections (a), (b), and (c), a student may be removed from class and placed in a disciplinary alternative education program under Section 37.008 based on conduct occurring off campus and while the student is not in attendance at a school-sponsored or school-related activity if:

(1)  the superintendent or the superintendent's designee has a reasonable belief that the student has engaged in conduct defined as a felony offense other than those defined in Title 5, Penal Code; and

(2)  the continued presence of the student in the regular classroom threatens the safety of other students or teachers or will be detrimental to the educational process.

(e)  In determining whether there is a reasonable belief that a student has engaged in conduct defined as a felony offense by the Penal Code, the superintendent or the superintendent's designee may consider all available information, including the information furnished under Article 15.27, Code of Criminal Procedure.

(f)  Subject to Section 37.007(e), a student who is younger than 10 years of age shall be removed from class and placed in a disciplinary alternative education program under Section 37.008 if the student engages in conduct described by Section 37.007. An elementary school student may not be placed in a disciplinary alternative education program with any other student who is not an elementary school student.

(g)  The terms of a placement under this section must prohibit the student from attending or participating in a school-sponsored or school-related activity.

[ChampionEagles]

I think this is what the problem with the players playing Friday night was. UIL will determine and notify schools involved. Go Grad, man now that is some research!!

[Guest 58SHW]

[quote name="WOSgrad" post="1127613" timestamp="1321992776"]
Okay, got the answer to my question. I got this from a side by sided on the UIL website (http://www.uiltexas.org/files/tea-uil-side-by-side.pdf)

On Page 10:

"[b][i]5. Are students who are placed in alternative settings for behavioral management eligible for extracurricular
activities?[/i][/b]  Students who are placed in a disciplinary alternative education program (DAEP) for a reason
included in TEC §37.006 must be prohibited from attending or participating in a school-sponsored or schoolrelated
activity as provided by Subsection (g) of that section.
Students placed in a DAEP pursuant to authority under a provision of the TEC other than §37.006 may be
prohibited from participating in school-sponsored or school-related activities by local district policies.
Students who have been assigned to a DAEP for a reason included in TEC §37.006 or those assigned
under a separate section of the TEC and prohibited from participating by local policy, may resume participation
in UIL activities the first day they return to regular classes after completing the assigned length of time in the
alternative education program."
[/quote]

So, by your interpretation of this, does that make Crockett ineligible....and if so, does it make the Ned players also ineligible (they didnt serve said time, lawyers got them out early)...

[badndn]

[quote name="ChampionEagles" post="1127577" timestamp="1321990559"]
I don't care about Nederland or Nederland kids and what went on there. Beat me on the field legit and I'll take it and go home and try to get better so it won't happen again. Cheat me on the field and I'll never get over it and remember it forever.
[/quote]

OK...So not sure how this is being cheated on the field. They didn't use an older player or kids from another district. They used the same kids that they had used all year long. So you weren't really "CHEATED" on the field.

[badndn]

No...The Nederland kids were eligible once the suspension was lifted. They did not participate until that point. Suspensions can be and often are lifted early for one reason or the other and there is nothing illegal about it.