Alduflux
-
Posts
215 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Articles
Events
Posts posted by Alduflux
-
-
2 hours ago, jcat69 said:
Ahrens was not ousted and "reason why Tony Ahrens was ousted' is laughable.
I agree. The first I heard of any of that was in this thread.
-
28 minutes ago, Titan32 said:
Oooo I see what you did there. That said, I think GS would have beat Jasper every year out of the last 11 except maybe one. I posted a calpreps study with regard to that last year. Why do I feel like I need a bath after reading a Jasper guy pumping the SIAC….feels wrong? Don’t worry HH will be back with a fury this year. Looks like Mt. Vernon will come away with a loss week 1.
I never mentioned Jasper.
-
On 1/27/2022 at 3:55 PM, Esso Ayche said:
...having opened that door, is 0-9 Washington an upgrade from 10-1 L-S for Southridge? ...who dropped whom?
Can anyone answer this?
-
1 hour ago, HHF said:
I was "way off"
Interesting take
I would look at it as SIAC has 5 of the top 6.
That sounds much more impressive
Or you could say the worst SIAC team is better then half the PAC teams.
-
1
-
-
33 minutes ago, Titan32 said:
Would be if you could lop off the bottom half of the conference I suppose. Well at least Vincennes is making the SIAC stronger.
You should ask HH how good the bottom half of the conference is.
-
8 hours ago, HHF said:
While the SIAC claims to be "different", it really is not
Nearly all conferences have 3 Tiers. Good-Average-Poor.
Good - Mem/MD/CA/JA
Average - CEN/N/R
Poor - BO/HA/VL
I'm curious how many other conferences have a program with 700 plus wins in there "average" tier. 5 of the top 25 winningest programs in Indiana history are in the siac. Only two of them fit in your "good" tier.
-
1
-
-
Is the rumor of them leaving the siac true then?
-
33 minutes ago, SouthernFan said:
I believe the two schools that want in the most are the Bloomington schools.
Is this actually something they want?
-
49 minutes ago, Football Fanatic said:
What about that team over in Lincoln City?
21 hours ago, Alduflux said:I also don't understand why Boonville or Mt Vernon would be interested in joining the SIAC or why the SIAC would want them. There are other programs that should be targeted to join along with GS. (Admittedly other programs are content with their current set up)
-
4 hours ago, HHF said:
Boonville would join for the same reason VL did. An opportunity to step up in competition .
Boonville is where they want to be.
-
Harrison is bigger then Memorial. If you put Memorial in the top division for competitive reasons (which I would) then MD should be in the top division also.
I don't agree that the SIAC has to expand to go to a division format. They could do that with two divisions of five. There would be plenty of cross division opportunity to fill out schedules. The key is having schedule coordination between divisions.
I also don't understand why Boonville or Mt Vernon would be interested in joining the SIAC or why the SIAC would want them. There are other programs that should be targeted to join along with GS. (Admittedly other programs are content with their current set up)
Additionally, why did the SIAC expand to begin with? If it was to improve competitive scheduling then having divisions would improve out of conference opportunity. If it was to alleviate scheduling problems then they should leave it as is.
-
1 hour ago, DumfriesYMCA said:
On top of that, Gibson Southern now can (And did) schedule a stronger SoS than what they could have if they had joined the SIAC…
How do you figure? Had GS been in a twelve team conference GS still would have had 4 non conference games. MD and Memorial would have been conference opponents in the SIAC small division.
-
1
-
-
On 12/9/2021 at 2:31 AM, hhpatriot04 said:
Any advice? I hear Memorial are experts in the Castle talent pipeline...
Castle has no problems with talent transferring to the PAC.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Bobref said:
Here are my thoughts. They are lengthy and involved, as this is a very, very difficult call. Please read the explanation as well as the conclusion so that everyone understands I have absolutely no problem with this Referee's call. As has been pointed out elsewhere, this is a multiple state finals crew. The R has a stellar reputation, well-deserved.
I’ve spent a long time looking at the video and going through the rule book and case book, luxuries this Referee didn’t have. I’m still not sure I’ve got it right. But I looked at the play from the standpoint of an observer, who will get the crew together after the game to discuss mechanics, rules, and thought processes on this very difficult play. Here’s my $.02:
From the video angle (which is not the same angle the R had), it looks like to me the QB is securely holding the ball, he begins his throwing motion, changes his mind, tries to hold onto the ball, but with momentum it comes out of his grasp. It is possible that a different angle shows something else. But from the comments I’ve seen, that seems to be the likeliest explanation for what happened. I saw someone reference the “tuck rule.” That rule doesn’t exist in the NF code. So, forget about that. So, the question I’m going to work through is whether this is an incomplete forward pass, or a fumble recovered by the defense for a TD, as ruled by the R.
First, let me state categorically, I have no criticism of the R’s performance on this play, or even his final ruling. From what the video shows, R was in the right position, looking at what he was supposed to be looking at. He came in deliberately but decisively with a good signal. His body language displayed confidence in his call. He did everything right from a mechanical standpoint.
Second, in order to answer the critical question, we start with the rules. What is a pass? “Passing the ball is throwing a ball that is in player possession. In a pass, the ball travels in flight.” It is also true that “Prior to releasing the ball on a pass, if the potential passer is contacted, and the ball is released, it is a forward pass if his arm was moving forward on contact.” We also have to factor in the “when in doubt” that officials can use to resolve thorny issues like this one: “When in doubt, it is an incomplete forward pass and not a fumble.”
Here’s the case for a fumble vs. an incomplete pass: The rule says a pass is “thrown.” This is not a term that is defined in the rules. To many people, the word “thrown” connotes an intentional act, not an accidental one. If the QB did not intend to release the ball, he didn’t “throw” it, so it cannot be considered a pass. In other words, a pass must be intentional, not accidental. No intent, no pass. And if it’s not a pass, it must be a fumble. This is a reasonable interpretation of the rules. In none of the secondary sources of case plays I looked through was there any play that contradicted this line of reasoning. So, even though I don’t agree with this interpretation of the rule, I can see it is a reasonable one … especially when you take into account that I’ve spent several hours on this play today, and the R had about 2 seconds to process everything that happened. So, I say again, I find no fault with the R on this play. I just don’t agree with him.
It’s clear that both the language of the rule and the case plays I’ve read illustrating the proper interpretation of the rule use the arm moving forward as the key criterion for pass vs. fumble. Once the arm starts moving forward, if the ball is released while the arm is still moving, it’s going to be a forward pass. This is true if contact causes the ball to come out. This is also true if, for example, the passer is contacted and, as a result, the ball actually goes backward. Once the arm starts moving forward, only two things can happen: Either the ball doesn’t come out, and the QB remains a runner, or the ball comes out, and it’s a forward pass. In other words, if the ball comes out after the arm starts to move forward, it cannot be a fumble. There is also the “when in doubt,” which, in my view, tilts the playing field toward pass vs. fumble. Finally, there is a philosophy at work among officials that we simply don’t want to award cheap turnovers, let alone a fluke TD. So, taking all of these things into account, if I were calling this play, seeing what I saw in the video (which may well not be the same thing the R saw on the field), I would have called this an incomplete forward pass. But as an observer, there is no way I would ever downgrade the R for his call on this play, even though I would have called it differently with the information I have. Ultimately, he made a judgment call, and his judgment was well within the realm of reasonable. Those who think everything on the field is black and white, with no gray areas, should realize through this discussion that sometimes there’s plenty of gray out there.
I think one thing we can all take from this play is that sometimes it’s fairly simple out on the field. But sometimes the guys in stripes are asked to do a virtually impossible job. And this play looks like one of those.
Does a play like this get used to clarify how a play like this should be ruled? Is the 'grey area' something that can be eliminated?
I'm used to hearing public changes discussed to rules in the NFL after 'grey area' plays: tuck rule (which was reinforced after the original tuck game), catch with a football move, etc.
-
15 minutes ago, tango said:
Me too. What the video doesn't show is the ball defected off a shoulder pad or helmet and went straight up into the air 10-15 feet. Bad call, gave them a cheap TO and fluke TD at the same time. Glad we were able to overcome it.
I would add the audible "thud" after the ball hits the pads/helmet of the lineman as evidence of a pass and not a fumble.
-
14 hours ago, Olympian06 said:
Will Memorial be only the 3rd school to bump up 2 classes? I don’t know how many points they have, or need to bump up another class.. Good Win by the Tigers.
14 hours ago, TigerFan20 said:4 in 2019
0 in 2020(I heard this year doesn’t count)
2 in 2021
As I understand it next years realignment will only include the 2020, 2021 seasons. Memorial will be 4a for the next two years.
"Tournament success factor points accumulated in 2020-21 and 2021-22 will be applied toward the next two-year cycle."
-
1
-
-
The SIAC outperformed Sagarin expectations in non-conference games by 104 pts. One year ago they outperformed expectations by 90 pts in round one and that resulted in a 11 pt rating bump per team on average.
-
1
-
-
SIAC Sagarin observations:
The SIAC as a whole is rated higher then one year ago, about 12 pts per team better this year. This comes from a strength of schedule weighting greater then last year. Currently, Jasper (5pts) and Castle (.43 pts) are both rated higher then Central was at the same time one year ago.
One year ago the conference entered sectional as 66 pt underdogs in round one non-conference games and outperformed that by 90pts. (Bosse alone was a 51 pt underdog, they lost by 49)
This year the conference is a favorite by 1.91 pts in round one non-conference games (MD, Vin, Bosse, Reitz, Jasper).
By comparison, the Summit (another closed conference) has one of the best strength of schedules in the state. Last year both conferences had the same strength of schedule heading into sectional. Some sort of adjustment was made to try and offset the closed conference problem.
-
10 hours ago, DumfriesYMCA said:
If you guys can make it where I don’t have to mess with PayPal you have my money.
just need a simple interface that I can enter my card # instead of waiting 5-7 days for PayPal with my bank.
Why don't you just use your card # on Paypal? That's what I do. No bank needed.
-
At first glance it appears as though the whole conference is rated higher then it was one year ago by Sagarin.
-
-
My condolences and prayers.
Can someone share what her name is?
-
3 hours ago, Titan32 said:
Don't forget yearly in the SIAC...but no one likes to talk about those.
Yes they do.
-
On 10/12/2021 at 10:20 AM, tango said:
Memorial at Castle will be a good one.
This game should provide a good barometer to compare how much Jasper and Memorial have changed since week 1.
The SIAC Thread
in The Indiana High School Football Forum
Posted
As a Jasper fan I'm not offended at all by preseason rankings. Jasper has only lost two SIAC conference games since the 1970's, so rank us where you see fit.
As for the PAC v SIAC nonsense: The difference isn't which champ is best, or which bad team is worst. The difference is the middle. If you really think the 4th and 5th place teams in each conference are equal then there really is nothing anyone can say to change your mind.