ksufreak I agree with most of what you said, except the situation where a family relocates. The 60 day waiting period does not apply where there is a bono fide change of residence. The 30 day rule for playoffs would still apply but not the 60 day waiting period. That said, I still think this rule will hurt all SCISA schools. Ask any admissions person and they will tell you the last few weeks before school starts are usually a busy time with students finally deciding to apply. Any student that plays a fall sport that showed up at a SCISA school today, for whatever reason, will be told they will not be able to participate until early October. Some students, will, I am sure, rethink their move, causing the school to lose a tuition paying student. With the economy today, as it is, I don't think there are many schools out there that are going to be too happy having to lose those paying customers. I could live with the rule if the cutoff date was changed to the first day of school not the first day of fall practice.

elcid - I hope you realize that SCISA does not use the name "Laughlin Rule". I used the name as it was told to me. I did not hear about the rule firsthand from someone in any position to know any facts about the rule. I obtained my information from a strategically placed linked organic data relay device.

I understand your concern for someone thinking that the good/bad standing part of the rule reflects badly on your boys. I don't think anyone reading this board would think such a thing. I think everyone understands that your name is associated with talk of the rule because your boys were such big impact players on the league.

quote:

Originally posted by Casual Observer:
ksufreak I agree with most of what you said, except the situation where a family relocates. The 60 day waiting period does not apply where there is a bono fide change of residence. The 30 day rule for playoffs would still apply but not the 60 day waiting period. That said, I still think this rule will hurt all SCISA schools. Ask any admissions person and they will tell you the last few weeks before school starts are usually a busy time with students finally deciding to apply. Any student that plays a fall sport that showed up at a SCISA school today, for whatever reason, will be told they will not be able to participate until early October. Some students, will, I am sure, rethink their move, causing the school to lose a tuition paying student. With the economy today, as it is, I don't think there are many schools out there that are going to be too happy having to lose those paying customers. I could live with the rule if the cutoff date was changed to the first day of school not the first day of fall practice.

ksufreak thanks for the comments and I guess I could live with the dang rule being unofficially called "the Laughlin rule". Although I'm sure others may have been equally or more deserving of the title! Also, I have to agree with Casual Observers comments, especially about observing the rule on the first day of school and not the first day of practice. As I stated earlier in this thread, the required waiting period seems very excessive and consideration should be given to reduce the waiting period for all situations. Later!

quote:

Originally posted by paruthed2k:
elcid - I hope you realize that SCISA does not use the name "Laughlin Rule". I used the name as it was told to me. I did not hear about the rule firsthand from someone in any position to know any facts about the rule. I obtained my information from a strategically placed linked organic data relay device.

I understand your concern for someone thinking that the good/bad standing part of the rule reflects badly on your boys. I don't think anyone reading this board would think such a thing. I think everyone understands that your name is associated with talk of the rule because your boys were such big impact players on the league.

So you used the old "strategically placed linked organic data relay device"---well even I know that all of that spelled backwards while only using the first letter of each word spells Dr. Dolps who happens to be a major contributor to a very influential SCISA school somewhere in S.C.!!! Yeah nice try paruthed2k---Later!!!

Dadgummit, you got me....

quote:

Originally posted by paruthed2k:
Dadgummit, you got me....

Yeah I thought you might appreciate that one--later paruthed2k and please keep us up to date like only you can do!!!!

My understanding of the new rule mentioned is as follows...

If a student is already participating in a particular sport, even one day of practice, and that student transfers to another scisa school, that student cannot play the same sport for 60 days. By far...this makes alot more sense than what has been tossed around on these boards.

That is possibly where the "in good standing" explanations may be coming from in the previous posts....but at any rate, this particular rule is, as explained above, a damned good one and long overdue.

quote:

Originally posted by Casual Observer:
ksufreak I agree with most of what you said, except the situation where a family relocates. The 60 day waiting period does not apply where there is a bono fide change of residence. The 30 day rule for playoffs would still apply but not the 60 day waiting period. That said, I still think this rule will hurt all SCISA schools. Ask any admissions person and they will tell you the last few weeks before school starts are usually a busy time with students finally deciding to apply. Any student that plays a fall sport that showed up at a SCISA school today, for whatever reason, will be told they will not be able to participate until early October. Some students, will, I am sure, rethink their move, causing the school to lose a tuition paying student. With the economy today, as it is, I don't think there are many schools out there that are going to be too happy having to lose those paying customers. I could live with the rule if the cutoff date was changed to the first day of school not the first day of fall practice.

I hope that this is the case. As it was quoted to me, the rule was going to include all transfers whether there was a change of residence or not. I think that is too harsh.

If there is a bonafide change of address, I think that should erase all transfer penalties. Kids should not be held accountable for circumstances caused by the adults in their lives. If a parent gets transferred from one part of the state to another, the child should not be punshised even if he was already enrolled in a SCISA member school in my opinion.

ksufreak that is the way Mike Fanning explained it at the meeting. As long as there is a bono fide change of address there is no waiting period. I agree you can't hold a kid accountable when his family moves.

Here's the actual rule as written in the new SCISA Blue Book:

Summary of Transfer Rules:
- A student who transfers after having: A. attended one class or B. filed the Agreement for Participation during the defined sports season or practices with team on or after first official practice date must wait sixty (60) days to become eligible. This may be waived for a bono fide change in residence.
- A transfer must have attended classes for thirty days prior to the start of the play-offs to be eligible to participate in the play-offs.
- An academically eligible transfer student (school year transfer as defined above) must have been eligible to represent his/her former school under any school, student, or athletic policy that was in place when the student transferred or the stu-dent must wait for ninety (90) calendar days to become eligible.
- A student who transfers before the start of the school year (has not attended one class and has not practiced with the team on or after the first official practice date) and has met all eligibility standards is eligible for athletic participation.

This is all on the new SCISA "Transfer Form" which also addresses recruiting: http://www.scisa.org/athletics.../Transfer%20Form.pdf

Here at Laurens Academy we are getting an extensive education in this rule.
1.) One of our students transfers to Laurens High, practices once and attends one day of school. Returns to LA = must sit out 60 days.
2.) a Clinton High student transfers after practicing there but before school starts, = must sit out 60 days.
3.) Two students who played for their school last year, but didn't practice with them transfered to LA this year, but didn't decide to play until school starts = will practice and maybe play the 29th.

The rule itself is questionable but the effective timing is definetly poor. Something like this needs to be in place and well understood well in advance of when it can actually impact an athlete. This should have been communicated broadly before school ended in May.

No matter what side of the fence you're on - it's a shame that there are players ineligible to play because of a new rule that they weren't aware of and wasn't communicated effectively.

SCISA should wait until after this fall to start enforcing it.