8th grade holdback

**Jason** · February 12th, 2007, 03:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
IMO holding back should not be allowed. It gives some schools advantages over others. I know for a fact that Thomas Walker doesn't allow hold backs so can anyone honestly say that doesn't hurt them when they play teams that do have hold backs?? We're talking about 16 year old kids playing against 18-19 year old MEN!!

[/ QUOTE ]

That is Thomas Walkers fault not the schools they play. Honestly I dont care who holds back. It isnt any of my buisness what the parent, student, and school choose to do. My daughter will be 18 her senior year and that will be if she doesnt fail. In Scott County the cut off for entering Kindergarten is the kid must be 5 years old by Sept 31. She was born on Oct 7. Just one wee past the deadline. So saying it isnt fair for a 16 yo to play against an 18 yo is wrong. Some kids can be born Oct 1 and will not get to start school the following year. That means if a boy wants to play football his senior year then he will play almost all the season as an 18 yo. Would it be fair to tell him he cant play because the school board wouldnt let him start school till he was 6? As for being 19 and playing that isnt my buisness.

**sup-rbeast** · February 12th, 2007, 03:32 PM

ya know...i really don't care one way or another when it comes to the debate with holdbacks. The whole time I was in school we played against teams that had em. One thing I can say tho...I only know of 1 in the past 20 years from my alma mater (who shall remain nameless). We never had em. But, I do see the avdantages of it. And I do see where folks can argue that it isn't fair. The way I see it, the VHSL should just make the rule without ambigious wording or loopholes so that it can be enforced. That way there will be a clear point of reference for rulings. I think it is fair to go to the rule the way it was originally proposed last year. That way all athletes begin their eligibility for JV and varsity in 8th grade. There will be equal footing for all the athletes and if a parent wants to hold their kid back in 7th grade they would know the kid would have to miss a year because they were too old for little league. I just think the way it is done right now is twisted and abused. And there is a big difference between a 19 year old and a 17 year old. But, hold backs seems to be the only way some schools can compete..so whatever happens happens i guess.

**Jason** · February 12th, 2007, 03:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
ya know...i really don't care one way or another when it comes to the debate with holdbacks. The whole time I was in school we played against teams that had em. One thing I can say tho...I only know of 1 in the past 20 years from my alma mater (who shall remain nameless). We never had em. But, I do see the avdantages of it. And I do see where folks can argue that it isn't fair. The way I see it, the VHSL should just make the rule without ambigious wording or loopholes so that it can be enforced. That way there will be a clear point of reference for rulings. I think it is fair to go to the rule the way it was originally proposed last year. That way all athletes begin their eligibility for JV and varsity in 8th grade. There will be equal footing for all the athletes and if a parent wants to hold their kid back in 7th grade they would know the kid would have to miss a year because they were too old for little league. I just think the way it is done right now is twisted and abused. And there is a big difference between a 19 year old and a 17 year old. But, hold backs seems to be the only way some schools can compete..so whatever happens happens i guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know who you are talking about being held back at PV. Like you it does not concern me. I for one will not hold back my child for sports reasons. I do know some do it and dont care. That is their problem. The only thing I am saying is that some when speaking of holdbacks bring up 18 year olds. In some cases that isnt the parents fault. It is the cutoff devised by the school board. I like you can see some point of argument but I guess it is up to the VH$L.

February 12th, 2007, 05:15 PM

This is how it has been forever. You take enough electives to remain playable, play JV. If ya wanna split hairs and worry ,like I said before- play 8th grade sports only in the first 8th grade year. If they screw you sue'em. They ain't that smart. The chairman of the school board told a lawyer he wouldn't understand the details of the Basham buy-out...I know she was smarter than the lawyer. [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

**sup-rbeast** · February 12th, 2007, 06:15 PM

Like I said, I could care less. But if folks are gonna whine, they need to just set it up one way and deal with it. If there is a rule on the books that is fair for everyone with just one interpretation, it'll do no good to sue.

February 12th, 2007, 06:28 PM

The rule is the same as it has always been. You just have to watch what you do. You can't PASS into the 9th grade and then holdback, you must not fail an 8th grade course that drops your GPA. [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] I'm not gonna sue over something that simple, I'm not gonna sue over anything, that easy.

**sup-rbeast** · February 12th, 2007, 06:39 PM

Earlier in the thread we were talkin about how the rule has been proposed to change. Given that it passed and in order to play HS/JV sports you had to be in the 8th grade and you only had 10 semesters to be eligible for JV/Varsity once you got in the 8th grade, and that if you held back in the 7th the athlete would be too old for little league but not eligible for JV because he wouldn't be in the 8th, how would they get around it then without sitting out a year of sports?

February 12th, 2007, 07:05 PM

Some that wind up holding back weren't too old for little league. That is why all don't fit in the same mold. The VHSL deals with senior high schools -10-12 in some cases, you will find them turning a deaf ear to this, I think. As for semesters, 2 for 8th grade, 2 for JV and 8 for varsity, isn't that what I said? [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Pay close attention. It should have been like this all along.

**sup-rbeast** · February 12th, 2007, 07:10 PM

No...what was proposed was making 8th grade/JV the same thing and having 10 semesters total...that means once ur in the 8th you have ur total eligibility begins. After 8th you have the same amount of time eligible as now...10 semesters total.