34 South Main St., Attleboro, MA - Directions - (508) 222-7000
Home News Sports Features classifieds milestones services photos tvlistings cars jobs realestate subscribe
News

Mansfield thrown for loss



Rodney Chance,l eft, and Andrew Doherty console one another as the end of last month's Super Bowl again against Walpole nears. (File photo by Martin Gavin)




MANSFIELD - In what is likely the end of a long process that has stretched from the football field to the courtroom, the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association has ruled that the Mansfield High School football team must forfeit two games in which it used an ineligible player and placed the school on probation for one year.

Other sanctions in the stinging rebuke include calling upon the school to punish head coach Mike Redding and refund legal costs incurred by the MIAA.

School officials say they were caught off guard by the severity of the MIAA reprimand.

The MIAA, in a letter sent to Mansfield High Principal Joseph Maruszczak, said it will "sustain the forfeit of two games" in which the school used an ineligible, fifth-year player.

The forfeitures mean the team will lose its Hockomock League title and be forced to return its Super Bowl runner-up trophy. North Attleboro High School will be the new Hockomock League champion.
On Tuesday, Redding said he was disappointed with the decision, saying he wanted his players to get the recognition they deserved.

"They worked very hard," he said. "We didn't want to see them lose out on a technicality."

The controversy began when Mansfield determined that the player in question was enrolled in his fifth calendar year of high school. According to MIAA rules, any fifth-year student wishing to play a sport must receive a waiver, which the Mansfield player never did.

School officials have said they used football as a way to get the student, who had previously dropped out, to return to school.

In December, after Mansfield self-reported the violation, the MIAA ruled that the team had to forfeit the two games in which the student played. The school sought - and received - a temporary restraining order against the ruling that allowed the team to continue playing. The court ordered the MIAA to convene a subcommittee to hear Mansfield's appeal before issuing a final ruling.

The MIAA held an appeal hearing on Dec. 18 to allow Mansfield to present its case. Maruszczak, Redding and Athletic Director Patrick Burns attended the hearing and spoke on the school's behalf, saying the issue was "an honest oversight."

According to the letter, Maruszczak must send "letters of forfeiture" to the principals of Oliver Ames High School and Sharon High School, the two schools Mansfield defeated while using the ineligible player.

The entire Mansfield athletic department will be on probation for one year and officials must develop a better process to determine eligibility within 90 days, according to the letter.

Maruszczak must also punish Redding, whom the MIAA said took too long in reporting the violation. If the school's penalties do not satisfy the organization, the MIAA will step in and issue its own punishment for what it calls Redding's "continued disregard for MIAA rules and policies," the letter said.

Redding was disciplined by the MIAA in February after excessively arguing with officials during a playoff game in 2007. He was ordered to attend a sportsmanship compliance workshop, apologize to the game officials in writing and write an evaluation of his sideline behavior.
Redding said he did not agree with the characterization and that he has worked hard to enforce the rules of the school and the MIAA throughout his 21 years of coaching.

"The (previous) incident was not a rule violation, and I self-reported this violation," he said. "I'm really not sure how that is disregarding the rules."

The MIAA is also ordering the school to pay the organization's legal fees incurred during the injunction proceedings, citing a rule that allows the MIAA to recoup legal fees if a school unsuccessfully sues the organization.

Michael Trowbridge, chairman of the school committee, said that while he had expected the MIAA to enforce the forfeitures, he did not expect the other penalties to be levied.

"Deep down I felt they would uphold (the forfeitures)," he said. "But that's all I thought the outcome was going to be."

Trowbridge said school officials will sit down in the next few days to review the MIAA's ruling before deciding how to proceed. He said the school has already begun developing a plan to prevent a similar situation from developing in the future.

Redding said althougth he was disappointed with the ruling, he was proud of the way the student athletes handled themselves throughout the process.

"The young men on the team handled themselves with a lot of maturity," he said. "I'm very proud of the way our students handled themselves."

MATT KAKLEY covers Mansfield for The Sun Chronicle. He can be reached at 508-236-0333 or at mkakley@thesunchronicle.com.

 


*Member ID:
*Password:
  Forgot Your Password?
 
View Comments » No comments posted. « Hide Comments

gridkid wrote on Jan 8, 2009 1:18 PM:

" Sun30
I am aware of the fact that the player was presented to the Coaching staff as eligible by the guidance dept. However, I dont believe anyone ever questioned the validity of it. There are over 100 players on the Mansfield Roster from Freshman to Seniors. The kid was NOT a transfer. He never played SPORTS period. The unfortunate thing of all this is that the coaching staff asked the wrong questions at the begining of the season. Do all my players on the roster have the credits and grades they need to play? Do you think that anyone on the staff actually would think that a senior who never played before may not be eligible because of an obscure rule that states you only have 4 years to play sports from the time you enter your freshman year? and NOT like the NCAA which states you have 4 individual years to play. Just wondering, all you coaches out there... how many of you out there are dealing with over 100 differnt players? Players that want to ba apart of a team and knowing that there is a no cut rule? What do you football coaches do with the extra 50 kids who are marginal? You try to get them all in. You try to make everyone part of the team. But in reality, what do you really think happens with 50 some odd players who are not ready for prime time? "

Sun30 wrote on Jan 8, 2009 6:39 AM:

" RE: Gridkid

All the coach had to do was call the player in question, ask him if this was his fifth year and ask him if he had played in any games this season. I doubt this would have taken five days. Watching the film was to add to the MHS spin that he only played seven plays in two blowout win. The rule is crystal clear to every high school in the state and I agree that it was an unfortunate oversight by the MHS administration. However, I believe they intentionally sat on this information once they found out which created the mess. For the bloggers to continually say how much the coach cared for this player who had dropped out and used football to come back to school seems disingenuos. If he cared so much, why didn' he know? "

Central MA Football Fan wrote on Jan 8, 2009 6:31 AM:

" Gridkid, the should have know months earlier. They five days is irrelevant.

Obsrvr, though we seem to agree on most things, I believe it is the head coaches responsibility to ensure that all administrative requirements are met before the season starts. Have seen how severe the pentalties could become, I as a coach verify that all my players are eligible. Might only take me a couple hours, and obviously longer for a football team because they have many more kids than my basketball team, but the time would be worth it to avoid these issues and what they haev done to their players. "

Central MA Football Fan wrote on Jan 8, 2009 6:25 AM:

" 071297, unfortunately the MIAA didn;t make the coach look bad, he and the school administration did. Players need to be evaluated at the beginning of the season to ensure eligibility. Why it took until Thanksgiving is beyond me. In September they should have know and if the player joined the team late, they should have verified eligibility then. Likely they could have gotten the required waiver but because of their own negligence, they did not. Let's put the blame where it lies and quit teaching our kids to blame others for our own faults. Hopefully the Mansfield players will learn the hard lesson from this that rules need to be followed. Not the lesson some writing here would subscribe to that individuals should not have to take responsibility for their errors and that there should be no consequences for not doing the right thing. Thta is it easier to blame someone else than those truly responsible. The MIAA did not break the rule, the Mansfield High School Administration and Football coaching staff did by not show due diligence in making sure their players were eligible. "

cmmsmc wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:57 PM:

" 1:The MHS staff had good intentions and tried to help a kid graduate using football as an incentive
2:The coach had many years experience and should have requested a waiver which they probably would have recieved
but he didn't
3: The fifth year senior was part of the team and practiced with them all along
4: To say that the fifth year senior was inconsequential is saying that any kid on the scout team, B team ,C team or whatver doesn't matter is a slap in the face to he kids who bleed their school colors and never sees serious playing time and that is wrong
5 Redding was determined to beat Feehan in the playoff since being beat last year and that was the teams goal then hopefully winning the Superbowl
6: Nobody expected the Walpole Coach to be such a scumbag and it is the kids who will be tarnished and it is a shame for all of the kids
7: Losers: Mansfield kids, North Attleborough Kids, Bishop Feehan kids
Reading Kids whose superbowl playoff and superbowl games were !@##$ up'd by adults
8: Winners:the kids of Walpole,Mansfield.North and Feehan who will learn and grow with this. "

gridkid wrote on Jan 7, 2009 9:29 PM:

" Sun 30
Mansfield KNEW 5 whole days in advance?
That is NOT true. Coach Redding heard a RUMOR 5 days earlier. at the rally the day BEFORE THANKSGIVING. What dont you understand about that? the faculty and entire admin LEFT THE BUILDING that afternoon. As he investigated over his Thanksgiving holiday to find out if the rumor was substantiated he EVENTUALLY found that it was needed for him to come forward to his superiors and say "hey, we MIGHT have a problem". We need to go thru HOURS AND HOURS of film to see if this kid ever got into a game. One kid out of 100. Did he play did he not play. IT took time to find out if he was eligible or not. IT took even longer to find out if he even played. OVER A HOLIDAY WEEKEND WITH NO HELP FROM THE ADMIN!!!!!!!!!!! "

Sun30 wrote on Jan 7, 2009 8:39 PM:

" 071297

I am a big sports fan and I am not from NA or any other Hockomock town. The Wapole coach is a criminal low life who is headed to jail. However, I don't see the correlation. You are assuming the school knew, and if they did, lots of heads should roll. Still, before you puff up your Mansfield pride, realize that MHS and the coach knew about the infraction five days prior to letting the MIAA know. They also knew what the penalty would be(see Lawrence High this year). NA should have been allowed to play and Feehan had to deal with the uncertainty of the sleazy legal maneuvering by MHS. If Feehan had won, they would have then been at a disadvantage against Walpole with one day less rest. And maybe the Coach is a great guy and coach, but from what I have been told, there have been some questionable residency issues of star players in past years. "

071297 wrote on Jan 7, 2009 8:14 PM:

" Way to go MIAA you succeeded in making a great coach look bad. Now what penalty is Walpole going to receive for knowing full well that there coach was behaving inappropriately with a minor during school and during the football season why did they let this go on for so long without taking any action. Maybe their undefeated season was more important to them than what was going on and they looked the other way. Sun 30 if NA could beat Mansfield for a change then you wouldn't be so jealous. "

obsrvr wrote on Jan 7, 2009 5:09 PM:

" Central, agreed. I imagine from here on out all of this will be checked and re-checked prior to the season beginning. "

Central MA Football Fan wrote on Jan 7, 2009 5:07 PM:

" Obsrvr, good point. I know as a coach, I verify the eligibility before the season of every player I have and the verify grades when they come out. I actually look at my players grades though out the season. I am wondering why no one picked up on this problem before the games were played. "

obsrvr wrote on Jan 7, 2009 4:55 PM:

" Central, I'm not sure I agree that folks on the side of the Mansfield coach think there should be no penalty. Although personally I think the aggregate penalties are a bit excessive. From what I understand of the situation, the five days it took to report included the long 4-day Thanksgiving weekend. With that in mind, I don't think the folks at the MIAA are the type to work through the holiday weekend to get this resolved. I think the ruling would have still come down a day prior to the Feehan game. "

Central MA Football Fan wrote on Jan 7, 2009 4:41 PM:

" Obsrvr, I agree with you when it comes to the fact that they wanted to appeal. I feel though that the firestorm is coming from those who feel that there should be no consequence for breaking a rule. I would have liked to see this situation taken care of before the post season. The chances of that happening was cause, I beleive purposely, by waiting five days to "self-report". Unfortunately, the players are suffering for the negligence of the coach. "

obsrvr wrote on Jan 7, 2009 4:34 PM:

" CSC, when you get the ticket for going over the 30 mph limit, you have the right to appeal that ticket. That's all Mansfield asked for in the first instance - the right to appeal - which is what started this firestorm. No one from Mansfield's side is denying a rule was broken. "

Central MA Football Fan wrote on Jan 7, 2009 4:24 PM:

" Mansfield would not be returning trophies if the coach, for the benefit of allowing his team to play in a Superbowl game, purposely withheld material information and then had the gall to get a court injunction so his team could play a game they were not authorized to play based on the violation. The coach created this mess and as parents, we should be holding him responsible. I understand that in the emotion of such a decision, it is only natural to obfuscate by stating what this school did, or what that school may have done, or what the MIAA should be doing. With many of the comments posted here it does not leave much to the imagination why our kids have such an attitude of entitlement. Many of the comments made here are perfect examples of teaching our children to blame anyone else except those who are in the wrong. winnawinnachickendinna I give credit for the player coming back to school too but let's make sure we teach him the right lessons. "

Common Sense Coordinator wrote on Jan 7, 2009 4:23 PM:

" Knowingly or not, rules were broken and to make it worse, the "self-reporting" was delayed 5 days from the first time a simple call the MIAA could have been made. Also, "not knowing" isn't a good enough excuse to be let off the hook. The coach may or may not have know the rules and/or about the 5th year status. Either way the rules were broken. I may not know the speed limit is 30 mph but when I get pulled over for doing 45 mph the "I didn't know" excuse isn't getting me off. "

Central MA Football Fan wrote on Jan 7, 2009 4:21 PM:

" I feel for the players of Mansfield High, especially the seniors. Being a parent of a player that has went to the post season the last two years (one Superbowl), it would upset me for something like this to happen. But my anger would be on the coach and school administration not the MIAA. By all accounts, the coach knew about the violation and did not report it for five days so that the team could advance to the playoffs though the application of the MIAA rule that was violated would have prevented it. This goes beyond the breaking of the rule; it shows willful negligence on the side of the coach. He may be a successful coach, very talented in his ability to manage a successful football program, and very well liked; but he put ambition in front of fair play. That is completely unacceptable. As a High School Basketball Coach, I will admit I don't agree with all the MIAA policies and rules but if a rule was broken, and was not addressed immediately by the coach (having full knowledge of a rules violation), then the fault falls on the coach. As I am held to certain standards, I would expect this coach to be held to the same standards. "

obsrvr wrote on Jan 7, 2009 4:00 PM:

" easy, he knows all of the rules. what he didn't know was that the player in question was a fifth year senior - and i would venture to guess that is not the head coach's job (he has assistants). not sure where the "walk on water" argument comes from - I can promise you none of those arguments would be made if he had losing seasons the last two decades. "

easyez wrote on Jan 7, 2009 3:27 PM:

" Peter, it's his JOB to know all of the rules. It's a shame that the kids have to suffer for his lack of professionalism. Then again, when you're that arrogant, you think you walk on water. "

peter q. zalover wrote on Jan 7, 2009 3:05 PM:

" mmarcia - He didn't knowingly break the rules! He didn't realize there was an issue until after the fact - then he self-reported! What about this is so difficult to comprehend? He could have asked for a waiver at the beginning of the year and got one if he thought the kid was ineligible. "

mmarcia wrote on Jan 7, 2009 3:00 PM:

" The coach knowingly broke the rules. Now he - and his players - will have to pay the price. It's sad that there are some people out there who can't see that. Is the punishment harsh? Perhaps, but the lesson has been learned. "

peter q. zalover wrote on Jan 7, 2009 2:29 PM:

" I couldn't agree more with winnawinnachickendinna's remarks. He is right on - finally someone on this board makes some sense. "

ricknkim wrote on Jan 7, 2009 2:26 PM:

" I think it was clearly an oversight and no ill intent by the coach. Regardless of intent, I think the MIAA till has to enforce the rules and therefore must sanction the team in some way. Not sure it is really a big deal either way.

I think winnawinnachickendinna needs to head home and kid a dog or something, talk about tossing insults left and right. "

jimr28 wrote on Jan 7, 2009 12:15 PM:

" Does anyone know what "probation" consists of? Is it like the NCAA where it means no post season play next season? Or is it just a term that the MIAA uses to make it look like they actually are doing something? "

obsrvr wrote on Jan 7, 2009 11:39 AM:

" d-rider, pull a fast one? "try" to do something wrong thinking they won't get caught? really?? I'm guessing that you're new to this story. Yes a rule was broken - but this wasn't Redding trying to slip in a fifth year standout in order to win games. The student in question played in seven (?) plays throughout the season. Your comment implies (directly) that Redding recruited the ineligible player intentionally because he believed it would help the team win. Not even close. "

winnawinnachickendinna wrote on Jan 7, 2009 11:33 AM:

" You people are all idiots for applauding the MIAA. I continue to be stunned that anyone at the MIAA has a job and a little less stunned that you buffoons think this was a good decision. First off, it doesn't matter because they lost the Super Bowl. They had a good season but if you don't win it all, they really aren't taking much from them. Second of all, if you clowns can't see that this was an oversight, you are and will continue to live you lives as oafs. If they asked for the waiver, they would have received it hands down. Why then, would they jeopardize the season by purposely not filing for a waiver? For you idiots out there, the answer is that they didn't do anything on purpose. The kid passed his physical, which is clearly important. He kept up his grades, which is most important. He barely played, which is not important. What IS important, is that he got back into the classroom, became part of a team, kept up his grades, and overall has had a good academic year. I just hope that this nonsense doesn't affect him. He's done better that most and it takes some serious balls to come back to school after dropping out. And no, I never dropped out of school. Keep living out you childhoods through high school football you MIAA supporting losers. "

realist wrote on Jan 7, 2009 11:16 AM:

" A sad lesson but an important one -- Rules are there for a reason. Breaking rules has consequences. "

dayrider wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:49 AM:

" Someone tried to pull a fast one and they got caught. Did they really think no one would catch on? Why do people always try to do something wrong and think they won't get caught? Was it really worth it when you look back at it now? Just how bad did you want to win games? Would there not have been more pride in winning games the right way? People do not want to play by the rules, do they? "

obsrvr wrote on Jan 7, 2009 9:40 AM:

" s-30, not sure where the "misguided town" comment came from..the "arrogant coach" - that is pettiness/jealousy, but at least I can infer the basis for that comment (your town has been on the losing end against Mansfield repeatedly). To find out how much Mike cares about his students (athletes or not), just ask the MHS community - oh, and not to be picky, it's "couldn't have cared less" - unless you were really paying Mike a compliment :) "

burf1 wrote on Jan 7, 2009 9:31 AM:

" Justice! "

Sun30 wrote on Jan 7, 2009 6:13 AM:

" Good for the MIAA. The other 300 plus high schools in Massachusetts were able to abide by the rules. This doesn't take away from all the players accomplished. However, it does hold an arrogant coach and a misguided town accountable. To bad North Attleboro loses out do to the sleazy legal maneuvering of Mansfield. If the coach was letting this young man play to help him get his life on track, he obviously should have known this was his fifth year. I believe that the coach could have cared less about a player who wasn't going to help him win. The coaches 20 plus years of experience should have made him well aware of the rules. "


*Member ID:
*Password:
  Forgot Your Password?
 
 or