Lemmy

2 hours ago, Coach_K said:

So if I am reading this correctly... If a player participates in 3 varsity quarters and 3 sub varsity quarters based on these old rules

Then he could only play in 2 varsity quarters the following week possibly causing his team to forfeit?  Because you have to charge him with each quarter of participation.  This is all so damn confusing and hopefully doesn't have to be used but just in case.

The week starts on Friday so a player will always be at zero qtrs on Friday, therefore unless a varsity game were to occur before Friday(don't think this is even allowed) a team would never have to forfeit the varsity contest due to too many qtrs. by a player. 

7 hours ago, Coach_K said:

It seems like the IHSAA should be consistent across all sports.  Last season in baseball a pitcher pitched more than his allotted pitches in a day (Regional).  His team won, then the IHSAA suspended the pitcher for the next game, which his team lost.  In this circumstance, I do not think the pitcher knew how many pitches he threw, but his coach should have.  The IHSAA chose to suspend the player not the coach, setting the precedence.  Obviously, there was good documentation with the pitch count and this could be harder to do in football especially if players wear different numbers.

Don't know what the baseball rulebook says but it is very clear in football that it would be the jv game.  Virtually impossible to ever lose the varsity football contest due to a player playing too many quarters.  Seems like you should lose the game that the violation occurred, but that may be a bit punitive if it was only a few pitches.  Brings to mind the George Brett illegal pine tar game.

Quarters Q. 54-2 When a player participates in more than the allowed number of football quarters on successive days or during a week, what action is required?

A. A violation of the maximum contest rule requires that the School to forfeit the game in which the player exceeded the limit, charge the player with each quarter of participation, and send a written report to the Commissione

It looks like AAF wasn't a total waste for a few guys.  Kitt O'Brien was only guy with Indiana ties that I saw on the list(would have loved to see Andrew McDonald invited too).  Good luck to all of these guys in continuing to chase their dreams. 

AAF players invited to NFL camps

On 3/12/2019 at 9:34 AM, MarshallCounty said:

I am for co-op teams before 8 man.  Let Jac-Cen-Del and South Ripley kids play for Batesville or Milan.

I agree, especially for the fall sports it can be very difficult for small schools to field competitive teams for football, soccer, and cross country.  There would need to be some limits, but if you have some kids that want to do a certain sport that isn't offered let them try at another area school.  

On 2/5/2019 at 1:07 PM, Coach Nowlin said:

Kicks off this weekend:  

Indiana Kids I saw on rosters:

Reese Horn

Chase Dutra 

Nick Temple

Andrew McDonald 

Gelen Robinson 

 

Don't forget Walton's own Kitt O'Brien for the Birmingham Iron, I believe you guys would have played him in 2008 Regional.  

On 3/1/2019 at 6:39 AM, Impartial_Observer said:

Not really sure this move changes anything. Typically the first move for the little ones is to stand up anyway.

I agree, kids are basically just pushing on each other at this age.  Injuries tend to be contusions on the arms or legs and there is no virtually no dangerous head to head contact.  I'm all for safety, but this is purely cosmetic.

4 hours ago, JustRules said:

This change was made because under the previous rule if you only had 10 players on offense with 4 backs and 6 linemen you were guilty of an illegal formation even though you were at a disadvantage of having not enough players. This change removes that as a foul and matches the NCAA rule. What both versions are trying to prevent is lining up 10 of your players at ends or backs so they are all eligible. They included the "minimum of 5 on the line" even though that's already covered by the numbering requirement. They really didn't need to mention it here but they did and it's creating a lot of confusion. You could legally snap with 6 players if you wanted (5 lineman and a back to receive the snap).

From an officiating mechanics standpoint, wings were usually counting backs anyway. As long as the R/U confirmed there were 11 players, they only had to make sure there were no more than 4 backs. If the R/U counted 10 players, then the wings would make sure there were no more than 3 backs. Now the wings don't have to worry about how many players there are on offense for this formation rule.

Thanks for the info

I noticed this paragraph in the article and was confused to what this was trying to say or prevent.  Is this just spelling out what a legal formation is if you don't have 11 players?  Maybe one of our professional officials can weigh in:

"A change in the definition of a legal scrimmage formation was approved. A legal scrimmage formation now requires at least five offensive players on their line of scrimmage (instead of seven) with no more than four backs. The committee noted that this change will make it easier to identify legal and illegal offensive formations."

After reading the article it isn't clear at all how this would help officiating at all, looks like an attempt to ram through someone's worldview.

Sound's like the standard fair corporate HR training that we are forced to sit through in corporate America:

"The bill, as it’s currently written, requires that coaches and athletic directors receive sensitivity training on gender and sexual orientation; race and ethnicity; disabilities; religious tolerance; unconscious bias; and diversity and inclusion. Sports officials also would be obligated to take part in the training."