I hear SCISA has quietly instituted the "Laughlin Rule". The rule states that anyone not officially enrolled in a school on the first day of practice cannot play for that school for 60 days after enrolling. You'll love this - AD's at schools must contact the school the kid left and ask the coach if the kid was in good standing with that program when he left. If so, 60 days wait and if not, get this, 90 days wait.

This even applies to kids moving in from out of the area or even out of state.

Now, imagine a star from the Summerville program decides he'd be better off at Pinewood today and wants to transfer. The Pinewood AD calls McKissic and asks if the kid was in good standing. What do you think the answer will be?

This is an assinine rule. As usual SCISA keeps wanting to shoot itself in the foot (can't be much left of that foot by now!). SCISA enrollment is shaky with today's hard economic times, so let's go enact another rule to discourage athletes from transferring. Ponderous, man, just ponderous.

why should a kid who is not in good standing at the school he is transferring from be allowed to play?
why would a coach from the transferring school do anything to sabotage a young person?

quote:

why should a kid who is not in good standing at the school he is transferring from be allowed to play?
why would a coach from the transferring school do anything to sabotage a young person?

Believe me, c lowe, such coaches exist. Not necessarily at Summerville High in 2008, but such coaches exist and have coached at Summerville in the past.

If I understand correctly, the transferring student has to be in "good standing" with his old coach (not just good standing academically) or he has to wait another 30 days for being in "bad standing" (whatever that is) with the old coach. If that's part of the rule, it was written by a nut-job.

I am not sure I understand the rest of the Laughlin Rule well enough to support or oppose it. Football and volleyball are tricky because practices (and sometimes games) start before classes do. Every regulatory agency struggles with issues that arise when students are participating in extracurricular activities before the school year even begins.

It is interesting that SCISA seems to base its entire regulatory scheme on whatever it doesn't like about Pinewood. A more rational approach might be to focus on the best interests of the students in their preparation for college and life.

SCISA has had to deal with transfers before, most recently with Columbia HS players transfering to a SCISA school for basketball, then transfering back for spring sports. If the rule is written as you stated then you're right it's assinine.
the local highschool does'nt like to lose any athlete to my school, and I can see they would block every student we get from them fromplaying.
Once again it seams SCISA overreacted to a situation.

Im not sure, but I thought this has been a rule. I kow it has always been when you move from SCISA school to SCISa school.

quote:

Originally posted by hoopsfan2005:
Im not sure, but I thought this has been a rule. I kow it has always been when you move from SCISA school to SCISa school.

I think what they are refering to is public to private. You are correct scisa to scisa has always be regulated.

quote:

Originally posted by paruthed2k:
I hear SCISA has quietly instituted the "Laughlin Rule". The rule states that anyone not officially enrolled in a school on the first day of practice cannot play for that school for 60 days after enrolling. You'll love this - AD's at schools must contact the school the kid left and ask the coach if the kid was in good standing with that program when he left. If so, 60 days wait and if not, get this, 90 days wait.

This even applies to kids moving in from out of the area or even out of state.

Now, imagine a star from the Summerville program decides he'd be better off at Pinewood today and wants to transfer. The Pinewood AD calls McKissic and asks if the kid was in good standing. What do you think the answer will be?

This is an assinine rule. As usual SCISA keeps wanting to shoot itself in the foot (can't be much left of that foot by now!). SCISA enrollment is shaky with today's hard economic times, so let's go enact another rule to discourage athletes from transferring. Ponderous, man, just ponderous.

I'm not sure why this would be refered to as the Laughlin Rule because both of my son's were in good standing prior to their departure from Summerville. Both academically and in all other categories. Although their move took place after the season began no other similarity exist. I'm quite sure we were not the only family to have transfered from public school to private school after the school year had already begun. Maybe SCISA just felt it was time to tighten up on their transfer policies in an attempt to hold Pinewood back from their almost certain athletic dominance within SCISA. Futhermore, I think this post should be edited to acurately reflect the rule as simply being called a new "SCISA Rule" or perhaps the new "Pinewood Equalizer Rule". That way it would be acurate and much less personal. Later!

elcid - I meant absolutely NO ill will towards your kids. Did not mean to single your family out or imply there was any wrongdoing, there was not. I apologize if it came across that way. Any malice or hostility was intended for SCISA.

I agree that Brice and Trent were not the only ones to transfer after the season started, but their transfer was the most visble because of the talent they brought with them. I used your name because it was SCISA's idiotic reaction to their transfers in creating this rule. And true, the only similarity was transferring after the season had begun, but with the new rule they would sit out sixty days before being eligible.

Again, didn't mean to imply any wrongdoing on your part. I wish both the boys nothing but success.

quote:

Originally posted by elcid85:

quote:

Originally posted by paruthed2k:
I hear SCISA has quietly instituted the "Laughlin Rule". The rule states that anyone not officially enrolled in a school on the first day of practice cannot play for that school for 60 days after enrolling. You'll love this - AD's at schools must contact the school the kid left and ask the coach if the kid was in good standing with that program when he left. If so, 60 days wait and if not, get this, 90 days wait.

This even applies to kids moving in from out of the area or even out of state.

Now, imagine a star from the Summerville program decides he'd be better off at Pinewood today and wants to transfer. The Pinewood AD calls McKissic and asks if the kid was in good standing. What do you think the answer will be?

This is an assinine rule. As usual SCISA keeps wanting to shoot itself in the foot (can't be much left of that foot by now!). SCISA enrollment is shaky with today's hard economic times, so let's go enact another rule to discourage athletes from transferring. Ponderous, man, just ponderous.

I'm not sure why this would be refered to as the Laughlin Rule because both of my son's were in good standing prior to their departure from Summerville. Both academically and in all other categories. Although their move took place after the season began no other similarity exist. I'm quite sure we were not the only family to have transfered from public school to private school after the school year had already begun. Maybe SCISA just felt it was time to tighten up on their transfer policies in an attempt to hold Pinewood back from their almost certain athletic dominance within SCISA. Futhermore, I think this post should be edited to acurately reflect the rule as simply being called a new "SCISA Rule" or perhaps the new "Pinewood Equalizer Rule". That way it would be acurate and much less personal. Later!

i think you ought to charge them for the labeling rights $$$$$
go get-um brother ...

quote:

Originally posted by paruthed2k:
elcid - I meant absolutely NO ill will towards your kids. Did not mean to single your family out or imply there was any wrongdoing, there was not. I apologize if it came across that way. Any malice or hostility was intended for SCISA.

I agree that Brice and Trent were not the only ones to transfer after the season started, but their transfer was the most visble because of the talent they brought with them. I used your name because it was SCISA's idiotic reaction to their transfers in creating this rule. And true, the only similarity was transferring after the season had begun, but with the new rule they would sit out sixty days before being eligible.

Again, didn't mean to imply any wrongdoing on your part. I wish both the boys nothing but success.

Thanks for the clarification paruthed2k! I agree, the rule seems to allow no wiggle room for the possible grey areas that often times exists when a family decides to transfer their kids during the school year. There definately needs to be some exceptions allowed for special circumstances. Also, the timeframe seems to be very excessive with 60 / 90 days, possibly 15 / 30 days might be a more reasonable time frame. Later!

Here is the clarification everyone is looking for:

The rule will not require "good standing" with the other team's coach, it will require good standing within the athletic department. There is a big difference. This is so a kid can't just transfer because they got into some kind of trouble at their old school. For instance, it has happened in the past that a player got suspended for a certain amount of games for being involved in something illegal. That player just simply transferred to a SCISA school to avoid the suspension. SCISA wants to be able to regulate that.

The reason some ppl in and around SCISA have labeled it the "lauglin rule" is that for right or wrong, the boys came into Pinewood in the middle of the season and then left at the end of the year. I am in no way saying that anything shady took place, I don't believe it did, but it did bring the practice under more scrutiny and because of that, SCISA is adopting a 60 day waiting period for all in-season transfers.

quote:

Originally posted by ksufreak:
Here is the clarification everyone is looking for:

The rule will not require "good standing" with the other team's coach, it will require good standing within the athletic department. There is a big difference. This is so a kid can't just transfer because they got into some kind of trouble at their old school. For instance, it has happened in the past that a player got suspended for a certain amount of games for being involved in something illegal. That player just simply transferred to a SCISA school to avoid the suspension. SCISA wants to be able to regulate that.

The reason some ppl in and around SCISA have labeled it the "lauglin rule" is that for right or wrong, the boys came into Pinewood in the middle of the season and then left at the end of the year. I am in no way saying that anything shady took place, I don't believe it did, but it did bring the practice under more scrutiny and because of that, SCISA is adopting a 60 day waiting period for all in-season transfers.

ksufreak--I do appreciate your candor however it sure would be nice to know what people in and around SCISA enjoy using my family name in conjunction with this rule. By using our family name in conjuction with this rule is implying that in some way we were involved in some wrong doing or my kids did something wrong prior to our departure from Summerville i.e., inelgible, suspended etc... However as I stated previously, both of my boys were in good standing with the Summerville program, SCHSL, Coaches and Academically. So why would our name be used in conjuction with this rule---if its just because my boys transfered in after the school year started and then back at the end of the year--no problem. But if its for any other reason, I certainly would take exception to those types of remarks. Besides, I can't believe that in all of the years of SCISA that no one has transfered to SCISA early in the school year and then at the conclusion of the school year they transfered back to public school. So why is this particular situation being treated so differently? Hey, maybe the reason this rule has been implemented is to curtail the transfers into Pinewood Prep. I'm sure some of the "Old SCISA Faithfull" are beginning to get worried about Pinewood and figured it was time to do something about it!!! Later!

Those of us who have been around the league for a number of years have seen too many instances where a student transfers to a member school in order to play a particular sport and then leaves the school when the season is over. The new transfer rule brings some consistency to our league as it should not matter whether or not a student is transfering into a member school from a public or another independent school....a transfer is a transfer and the student needs to sit. After all, if a student really desires to attend the new school then s/he should have no problem with sitting out the season. Thank you Mr. Fanning for your hard work in getting this rule passed. You are appreciated!

quote:

Originally posted by SCISAvet:
Those of us who have been around the league for a number of years have seen too many instances where a student transfers to a member school in order to play a particular sport and then leaves the school when the season is over. The new transfer rule brings some consistency to our league as it should not matter whether or not a student is transfering into a member school from a public or another independent school....a transfer is a transfer and the student needs to sit. After all, if a student really desires to attend the new school then s/he should have no problem with sitting out the season. Thank you Mr. Fanning for your hard work in getting this rule passed. You are appreciated!

SCISAvet, In this instance (The Laughlin's) nobody left after the season was over they left at the conclusion of the school year. They first arrived at Pinewwod within the first two weeks of school. So I asked why the heck is this called the laughlin rule--there is absolutely no basis for calling it the laughlin rule! Why don't they call it the "Mr Fanning rule" just keep my name out of it! Later!

Mr. Laughlin,

I can't speak for anybody in the SCISA administration.

From what I understand, the way your name might have gotten attached was as a simple example of what they saw as a problem they were trying to fix. That problem is simply the transferring of student athletes during the season.

An example might be (disclaimer: I have no knowledge of any specific conversation)

"we need to change the rule on in-season transfers"

"like what for instance"

"like when the Laughlins transferred in during the middle of the football season and played immediately"

Hence, the "Laughlin" rule.

But it would affect many different schools and programs, not just Pinewood. Hilton Head Prep had a player transfer in during December last year and she played immediately. Her family relocated from Chicago. Under this new rule, she would have been eligible in the beginning of February, but because of SCISA's rule about players having to be on the roster 30 days prior to the state tournament, she would not have been eligible anyway.

Let me also say that SCISA has had a 60 day rule for member institutions for years. It has only applied to in-term transfer between member schools. It is a much more lenient policy than that of SCHSL. There transfer policy between member schools is one year. In SCISA, a basketball player can transfer in during football season and basically have to sit out no time because the 60 days starts from the day of enrollment, not the beginning of the season.