ASA Rules on Elite Genovese/Pack Collusion...

Some of you have heard about this and some not but this is about how the Pack Elite obained its bid:

Read and judge for yourself and for everything go to the SCVarsity website and or the Sandhills Slammers website:

Kinda Sad in my opinion that poor ethics have creeped into our game:

ASA rules on Slammers Complaint on ASA StateReply
Below is the result of the Sandhills Slammers complaint process with ASA regarding the incidences that occurred at the 16u SC State that resulted in the SC Elite (Pack) being given a berth to the nationals as a result of an intentional forfeit by SC Elite (Genovese).

One of the main questions of my complaint was "Does the ASA condone this type of behavior from their coaches?" and "Does the ASA support using forfeiture of games to manipulate the outcome of a tournament

There has been a lot said on this forum about this issue. Here are the official documents and how ASA ruled. Since this forum does allow live links you will have to paste this link into your browser.

http://www.eteamz.com/SandhillsSlammers/handouts/
and then select the "ASA Complaint" link

Or can go to the slammers home page (www.sandhillsslammers.org), select "Handouts", then "ASA Complaint". Once there you will find the following documents. You are all free to draw your own conclusions.

1. Slammers complaint to SC ASA Commissioner

2. SC ASA Commissioner Ruling

3. Slammers Appeal to ASA Executive Director

4. ASA Executive Directors Ruling

5. 2011 ASA Code

Bottom-line of the Exe Dir ruling...

"...The code is clear that it is up to the tournament director and local association to suspend a team in championship play if they forfeit a game. Since the team (SC Elite - Genovese) was not suspended they had the right to drop to the loser's bracket and to continue to play in the State tournament...."

I spoke with the ASA Executive Director after he issued his ruling. It was made very clear to me that he was not condoning or ruling on the action, right or wrong, of Genovese/Pack did but his ruling was based purely on what the Trounament Director (TD) did or did not do at the time, based on the code, which is his job. He also made it very clear to me that the Tournament Director did, in fact, have the authority, based in the code, to do several things about what happened but, for whatever reason did not. And since both doing something and doing nothing are supported in the code he had to rule the way he did. So to be more clear...

According to the National office, the word "MAY" in 505 A-01 and 08, gives the TD much latitude and authority so the Tournament Director, could have suspended them both on the spot for unsportsmanlike conduct, OR he could have suspended Genovese for the forfeit, OR he could have sent Genovese home after the forfeit and not let him run interference for Pack in the losers bracket OR he could do nothing which is what he chose to do. "Suspension" in this case could have been as simple as disqualification/removal from the event to being suspended from all ASA activities for 6 mo. ALL of these things are supported in the code and had ANY of these other options been done I'm told the National office would have supported that action also cause it IS supported in the code. So it definitely seems to me as though the national office is throwing the TD under the bus here saying he had the authority all along to prevent this but he didn't, for what ever reason.

So the Slammers were caught in the old "Catch22" ... ie even though the TD did, in fact, have the power/authority to do something to prevent what happened in part or in whole at the time (contrary to their claim), because he didn't do anything at the time, then nothing can be done now, cause all of the above is supported in the code. Take a minute to get your head around that FACT. Unfortunately, in the code, there is no difference between not knowing you could have done something or just not doing anything cause you didn't want to. Since doing nothing is support in code, then doing nothing is what stood in the ruling. Very convenient way to write "code" for ASA. That said....

All of us that were at the tournament that questioned this scheme by Genovese/Pack were told , numerous times, that he (the TD) didn't like what Genovese/Pack were doing any more than we did. But he said he had talked to the SC Comm., the Regional Comm., and that someone had talked to the national office. He said he was told his hands were tied and was advised that there was nothing that could be done about it. Well it appears that in fact, according to the national office, nothing could be further from factual. The executive director told me in no uncertian terms that it was all in the Tournament Directors hands and it was Totally his call to make, he could have, in fact, prevented all of this and it would have been supported in the code.

All of us at the tournament that talked to the TD know what he said to us and Chad was pretty clear here in the original thread on this subject ie ....

In his response to me Gerald, the SC State Comm., said he was called and the regional JO was called (but she did say she didn't have her code book with her), he didn't mention the national office in his reply and I couldn't find anyone at the national office that said they got a call that day. During the course of this process no one has named names of whom was talked to at the national office so one must assume that the national office was not consulted. Unfortunately if the national office had been called we might not be here. So it boils down to either a case of the TD did not act because he didn't know he could and/or was poorly advised, or because he didn't want to for what ever reason.

During this process I must have spoken to or written 20+ different ASA reps at different levels of this organization, and everyone of them thought that the Genovese/Pack forfeit for a berth plan stunk. but they also said it was the TD's job to do something about it. In his response to me the SC State Comm. let Genovese/Pack off the hook cause they told the TD up front what they were going to do. So because they told him they were going to do it made it OK? We would be in a big mess as a society if we applied that principle. Let's face it, any of the other coaches at the tournament standing down wind of this know what this collusion by Genovese/Pack smelled like and everyone else at the tournament knew it also, including many of the Elite's own parents and players. Anyway, those that choose to run their programs using those kinds of ethics will reap what they sow. What comes around goes around. We can put them up there with Jim Tressel, Bruce Pearl, Lane Kiffin and some of the other "Elite" coaches of the ncaa. Good luck to them both at the Nationals.

So to answer the question "Does the ASA support the forfeiting of games to manipulate the outcome of a tournament?" the answer, based on the ruling of the national office is ... Yes, if the TD chooses to do nothing about it. I commend upstate ASA of doing a good job of circling the wagons and protecting there own all the way around. I was told that it would end up this way. But at least they can't hide behind the "we didn't like it either" and "we couldn't do anything about it our hands were tied" defense. This was their call and their fault it was allowed to happen and they need to step up and own that and apologize to the other teams that paid their money and had a right to expect that the tournament would be played out as it fell not as it was manipulated.

So where do we go from here? How do you prevent this from happening again ? Where do you draw the line? I know it might sound like a stretch but it only follows that if you allow a team to give a free pass to a sister team or friend, what is there to prevent a team with a berth from selling a free pass to advance to another team by using forfeit? Obviously it can get as sordid as those willing to participate.

I was told by the national office that a proposal for a change in the code was going to be put to the membership this fall as a result of this. Maybe adding a ethics course for coaches to the ACE program might be good? Maybe a signed ethics pledge as part of the ACE process? Maybe a code knowledge test requirement for those running tournaments? Maybe a requirement that the national office be contacted in such situations? I guess you could do any of those things and it would help. But obviously we wouldn't be here if these two coaches held to the principles of competitiveness and fairness and played the games as they fell instead of gaming the system for their own gain. What did they really teach their players?

Before this happened you couldn't find a bigger advocate for ASA in this state than myself. This has been an eye opening process for me in many ways and I'm truly sorry to say that at this point it's hard for me to find $.02 worth of difference between the SC ASA and the other good ole boy alphabet leagues around the state. It's no wonder that up starts like Premiere Fast Pitch continue to make inroads into ASA membership and attract many of the elite teams of this sport. In my opinion this whole incident was indeed a very sad day for SC ASA and the integrity of this game.

Joel Hughen, Mgr
Sandhills Slammers

 

All of the uncivil part was done over the past three weeks. This is the final result received this week. Many ASA directors including one from NC were included in the appeal but the bottom line is that the "code" is the word.

The Slammers and others main complaint to the ruling is that when this was occurring during the tournament the other teams were told over and over by the tournament director that he could do nothing. Once he and our state director allowed the forfeit without penalty, the three week appeal process we just completed didn't have a chance.

Those involved do think that ASA will change the code so that "Collusion" like this can never happen again.

Sadly the Elite (Pack) is an excellent team and could have prevailed anyway but we will never know. They got their bid in Nascar like fashion.

 

I'm not connected with these teams or tournament in any way. But "throwing a game is throwing a game". Even if it's called a forfeit, a rose by any other name is still a rose.

Intentional forfeits stink! No matter the purpose! It degrades the integrity of the sport and should have negative consequences—at whatever level, Rec thru Professional!

 

Exactly... Reader's Digest version please.

 

Short version

I read through most of this and here is a short version of my understanding of what happened. Will just use team 1, 2, and 3 to keep it simple. I was not there and have nothing to do with any of the teams/players.

Team 1 has a very strong team and had already won a previous qualifier tournament and earned a berth
If team 1 won this tournament, the berth would go to the second place team as team 1 already qualified
Team 2 is in the same organization as team 1 but not as strong a team
Team 3 had previously lost and was working their way through the losers bracket
Teams 1 and 2 (same org) met in the semi-final winners bracket game to determine who goes to the championship game
Team 1 forfeits sending team 2 to champ game rather than play the game and most likely send team 2 to losers bracket
Team 1 drops into the losers bracket, beats team 3, and goes to the champ game
Team 1 and 2 (same org) are now in champ game
Team 2 forfeits champ game 1 to team 1
Team 2 forfeits "if" game to team 1
Team 1 wins tournament is awarded state championship
Team 2 is awarded berth because team 1 already had a berth

 

Readers Digets version:

Elite/Genovese got their berth a couple weeks before in Ringgold ,Ga in a regional qualifier.

The players came to play to win a state championship which is perfectly fine but sadly that is not what they did because the coaches colluded.

Once both Elite teams made it to the finals of the winners bracket Genovese forfeited(berth in hand already) so as to make anybody coming out of the losers bracket win three games instead of one(assuming the stronger on paper Genovese beat the Elite Pack as expected). Had Pack upset Genovese then three games will still be needed but it would have happened on the field.

Also the two teams did not play the finals as we were told the younger team forfeited those games back to Genovese but the TD saud they just decided to be co-champs.

The Slammers won four straight losers bracket games but lost to Genovese who was rested and waiting in the losers bracket.

Therefore Elite Pack got the state national berth without player the finals of the winners bracket or the championship game. South Carolina only gets one berth.

Despite the fact the tournament director spent the afternoon saying nothing could be done when it could have this carried no weight on appeal as ASA Nationals does not accept ignorance by their representative as a correctible item.

 

cheeze105 the short answer to your question is yes they forfeited then waited to run a Nascar type interference for the younger team.

One ASA elected offical in the highest positon felt that they should have gone home at the first forfeit but the executive director(paid position) is taught to rule on the code.

 

Just lost all respect for the SC Elite organization. Does that kind of underhanded behavior flow over to USC Upstate College softball?