Bobref

I don’t think 16 teams is enough for a “class.” Frankly, I’m not that comfortable with 24, but at least it’s better than 16. And as far as a process for determining byes, who cares? Pick a way. It’s not rocket science.

This could be one of those rare instances where a kid actually chose a school because he felt it was a good fit for him, as opposed to a training ground for the NFL. Good for him.

If the protection from defamation claims based on user’s comments is removed, you can kiss Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter, etc., goodbye. In fact, you can probably kiss the GID goodbye, too. Imagine some guy coming on the GID and posting a rumor about a coach’s alleged improprieties ... which turns out to be false. The coach then sues that poster for defamation, and the GID for posting it. The GID is not incorporated (to my knowledge), and does not carry insurance. Theoretically, the moderators could be personally exposed. How long do you think the GID will last? Think about apps like Yelp and Trip Advisor. They will go away, too.

I don’t have a problem. The Indy schools play the best football in the state. They should dominate.

“7A” is a solution looking for a problem.

His father, Bob, is a legend in the high school football officiating community. He was a mentor to me, of sorts, although our careers as referees overlapped quite a bit.

I don’t know coach Kania. But if he is half as good a coach as his father was an official, look for Wheeler at Lucas Oil soon.

Biden’s EO establishing a commission to “study” Supreme Court “reform” provided the study was to be completed within 180 days. So, the report ought to come out right about the first Monday in October. Coincidence?

Confirmation bias has largely replaced critical thinking skills. I know a lot of people want to de-emphasize a college education as not justified based on the return on the investment. But of all the things I learned in college, the skill of being able to think critically is the one most responsible for any success I’ve had. The ability, through social media, to find large groups of people who support pretty much any position, no matter how stupid, and to bring withering criticism to bear on any contrasting viewpoint, stifles honest debate. It makes us, collectively, dumber.

Not necessarily. You’re already on the GID. The idea is to drive FB users to the GID, not vice versa.

I think the GID could make more effective use of its Facebook page. Facebook “sharing” would be a relatively easy way to drive guest traffic to the GID.

This case continues to develop in a fascinating way. The plaintiffs’ names will be disclosed publicly. One plaintiff chose to dismiss the lawsuit “for now” rather than be identified. But another filed a new suit. But the most interesting development is that Watson’s attorney has given us some insight into their defense strategy. He has said that there were “some consensual acts.” So, at least as to some of the lawsuits, Watson is going to claim that there were consensual sex acts. Raising that defense probably gives him the best chance to stay out of jail, but probably gets him in real hot water as far as the NFL’s personal conduct policy. https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/31258019/women-amend-lawsuits-vs-houston-texans-deshaun-watson-disclose-names-1-plaintiff-withdraws-suit-now

It’s an interesting insight on how the GID works. Particular teams or conferences are the talk of the town ... for a while. Then kids graduate, friends and parents move on. New ones take their place. It’s happened with NLC fans. It happened with the Roncalli crowd. It’s happened with the NIC people. Except, I have a sense that the GID is not replacing those that have moved on at a fast enough rate, with the result being that both the quality and quantity of the discussion and debate have deteriorated in the last couple of years. I would estimate that about 75% of the posts on here come from about a dozen people. That’s not a recipe for a healthy discussion board. Anybody have thoughts on what the answers might be?

A basic fact confirmed by every study ever done by anyone is that legal gun owners commit violent crimes at an absurdly low rate. It’s almost non-existent. That’s with the laws as they are now, and have been in the past. So, what is the issue driving further restrictions to be applied to those legally possessing firearms, if it’s not simply political pandering? The argument seems to be that legally acquired weapons are somehow finding their way to subsequent owners who acquire them in transactions that do not include background checks and other “safeguards” against guns falling into the hands of those who shouldn’t have them. Have there been any studies linking these types of firearms to, for example, mass shooting incidents? That’s the sort of evidence I’d like to see. Otherwise, it seems to me that there’s clearly a gun violence problem in this country, but the proposed new restrictions don’t really address that.

Pretty sure the one at NJ was a slightly larger caliber.😂🤣😆

There are probably a few places that still do this, but when I first started working varsity football I was a back judge on a crew that had a game at North Judson. I didn’t notice it (that’s how oblivious I was in those days) before the game, but the local Reserve contingent had a howitzer sitting behind the north end zone. First score of the game for the Bluejays and, much to my surprise, the cannon went off right behind me. I could still get some air in those days, and I got plenty when that thing fired. I think I had to throw away the shorts I was wearing under my knickers.

Very interesting article I got from Referee Magazine online. It briefly addresses a pet peeve of mine: officials having some sort of conference and they’re touching one another with a hand on the arm, arm around the shoulder, whatever. But the article is mainly about contact between players and coaches on one hand, and officials on the other. I confess there have been many times when I helped a player up off the ground. Interestingly, the article doesn’t talk about COVID 19, which is another reason fir a “hands off” policy. What’s Acceptable Contact Between Officials & Participants? The issue of the propriety of any two human beings touching one another runs the gamut of the human condition; from liberal to conservative, man to woman, western to eastern. It has become a particular lightning rod in sports because at times it pits the perception of the officials’ impartiality against the notion that sport is a social endeavor, where human beings express themselves, sometimes by quasi-intimate contact. Nonetheless, the refereeing authorities will tell you that the best policy is to avoid touching players, coaches and each other as much as possible. Oh, there are some exceptions and some issues of common sense, but many officiating leaders feel that drawing the line at zero is the best way to avert two issues. One is with officials who don’t see potential problems that could result. The other is with coaches, players, fans and media who are either paranoid enough or jaded enough to believe anything more than a handshake is proof of collusion. “Because officials are under a microscope from the time they step onto the court until the final buzzer, it is best if they refrain from touching fellow officials, players, coaches and those working around the game due to the sensitivity many have toward touching,” says Debbie Williamson, NCAA women’s basketball consultant as national coordinator and secretary-rules editor. “Officials have numerous ways to communicate during the course of a game and when we can avoid touching others, it is best to do so.” Times Have Changed Randy Krejci is commissioner of the Mississippi Valley Conference, an enclave of 14 major high schools in eastern Iowa. He’s a recently retired middle school principal but also a veteran of numerous state finals as an official in football, basketball and volleyball. He’s been on both sides of the mirror. “In Iowa, some officials have gotten in trouble for even inadvertently touching someone of the opposite sex,” says Krejci. “In the school setting, you have to be very careful that any kind of touching isn’t misconstrued.” He believes that most instances arise from perfectly innocuous events, but since officials are held to a higher standard, they receive less forgiveness. “It can certainly ruin someone’s career if it gets embellished in the media,” he explains. Whether an official is exonerated or not, the mere publicity can be detrimental. Early in his career, Krejci says, he thought nothing of helping players up off the floor or, as an educator, driving a student home if he or she had missed the late bus. Those days are gone and his school district, as an example of most, has very clear policy on when, how and with whom present, to interact with students in any situation. In his own case, as with many of us, it’s led him down the road of having to modify little behaviors that had been natural to him. “If you’re doing things the same way as you did five years ago,” says Dave Libbey, “you’re not keeping up with the times.” Libbey is an eight-time veteran of the men’s basketball Final Four and now the officiating coordinator for the Big West Conference. It’s his perception that the attitude toward personal contact between officials and participants has changed that quickly. It has reached the point that his instructions to his staff are simple: If there’s no management purpose to touching a player or coach, don’t. Avoid Buddy Perception That plows a lot of acreage. Does it mean that from the time the crew walks out on the floor until it zips closed its overnight bags, it should avoid all physical contact with any and all life forms? No, from his point of view, it means that his crews should do whatever is necessary to avoid any situation putting their impartiality or liability at risk. Actually, that allows some leeway. If one of his officials is at Gonzaga and Coach Mark Few thrusts out his hand, is he supposed to spin move away from him? No, says Libbey, because that looks just as suspicious as what he witnesses more often, which is schmoozing ad nauseum. Is the touching that happens normal for the situation? “It doesn’t look good when you’re out there being buddy-buddy (with a coach),” explains Libbey. Coaches at the college level are paranoid of the forces — imagined and real — working against them, he says; seeing the other coach apparently planning his next hunting trip with the zebras gets them going. Libbey even knows of some teams who have their ever-charting assistants keep track of the amount of face time the other coach spends with each official. What Libbey wants is a simple greeting and handshake with a coach and then to get across the floor to make some space. Once there, the next inevitable challenge is the assistant coach who wants to sidle up while the officials are observing the warmup. A friendly handshake is OK there, too, but that’s when Libbey wants his people breaking it off if any attempt is made to start chatting them up. “I just tell them to say, ‘Look, it’s good to see you, but I’ve got to go over here and watch this,’” he explains. That way, onlookers witness that the referee isn’t totally antisocial but is also present to do a job, which doesn’t include exchanging baby pictures. More and more, players on some teams, during introductions, will shake hands with their opponent, the opponent’s coach and then work their way to the nearby officials. The traditionalists will see that as a simple act of sportsmanship. Others may see it as an early indication of oneupsmanship. Officials are again in a bind, because they can more easily look silly rebuffing the overture than they can look suspicious by accepting it. Hands-Off is Best Some of his officials, Libbey says, are still “old school” and used to a more familial approach, including man hugs and friendly pats. Taking the handsoff approach is one of the things both he and John Adams, former NCAA men’s basketball national coordinator, look for in sizing up officials. As far as touching players, Libbey says he can see the point of prudently getting between two players if it helps avert a fight but, other than that, you should never touch them. Laying hands on players who have hit the floor, for example, is definitely out because it might make an injury worse. That’s a good thing to think about the next time you want to help untangle a pile of football players, too. Libbey also reminds us that players and coaches have varying responses to any kind of physical contact when under duress; why risk a short left hook? OK, basketball’s a sport in which the opportunity for physical interaction between officials and participants isn’t great when the clock’s running. There are other sports, like baseball or softball, in which the proximity of the umpire to the catcher, for example, can invite contact, but is that a good thing? Gene McArtor doesn’t think so and, in his role as national coordinator of NCAA baseball umpires, he carries some weight. He agrees with Libbey that there are few good reasons to be touching players or coaches. Baseball, in one respect, is different from other sports because it traditionally tolerates heated confrontations between umpire and contestant. As a Band-Aid, it also promises that touching an umpire will earn a quick thumb and the promise of further penalties. For McArtor, it’s fair, then, that the umpires shouldn’t touch players or coaches, either. Often, though, we’ll see the plate umpire gently lay a hand on the back of the catcher to line up his strike zone, for example. McArtor understands that mechanic but doesn’t want the umpire to maintain that contact. In his view, it would be better if it didn’t happen at all, but he definitely doesn’t want it to persist once the pitcher begins his delivery. It’s an invitation for coaches to claim it distracts their player. “My policy is not 100 percent agreed with by everyone,” McArtor admits, “because it differs from how some of them learned the job. “In my view, though, that’s not the way the game is anymore.” There was a time in soccer when officials in some parts of the world would give players a little shove to get their attention. Italy comes to mind, where some of the greats like Pierluigi Collina could do that and keep their jobs. It seems like wearing water skis to detect land mines in today’s world, but the prevailing powers accepted that the passion on a soccer field sometimes required a more personal touch. Today, players have to settle for a shaved head and menacing look from the likes of England’s Howard Webb, and certainly the USSF frowns on touching, like everyone else. Tony Crush is a national level official with MLS experience and is responsible for referee instruction in Kentucky. “It’s been U.S. Soccer’s position from a liability and game management perspective that we shouldn’t be touching players,” Crush explains. “It can be misconstrued. “Our society asks us to be on the field what we would be in our normal lives. That’s what humanizes us and the players appreciate it.” We also should consider whether touching a crewmate is out of bounds. Certainly, putting an arm around an official of the opposite sex isn’t likely to look much better than attempting the maneuver with a coach. He or she is simply a co-worker, not likely to be your spouse and not likely to appreciate the attention. When it comes to officials of the same gender, the best policy is to handle them no differently than the contestants. Obviously, a handshake or a fist bump, appropriately rendered before or after the contest, is sensible, but remember that fellow officials are under stress, too. If an arm around the shoulder, for example, is calculated to “relieve tension,” it might backfire if your confrere feels patronized, demeaned, cornered or worse. It also doesn’t portray any confidence in your fellow official to the players and coaches if you do that while huddling to discuss a play. It gives the impression that the official is weak and needs a helping hand. A good policy is to treat your relationship with your partners no differently than anyone else. Another Rule to Enforce Sport, all the way down to Little League and Pop Warner, has become big business; an eating machine consuming the passions of all involved, including officials. In anything other than professional wrestling, the arbiters play a big part — and more frequently the decisive part — in maintaining a measure of sanity when the ball’s in play. They help protect the legitimacy that doping, huge salaries and overstated egos have been eroding. Officials are on a big stage with big people and maybe it isn’t asking too much for them to accomplish more by actually doing less when it comes to fraternizing with the participants. Fans are more willing to cast a jaundiced eye on what takes place on the court or field. Psychologists can tell a lot about people by handing them a picture and asking them to make up a story about it. Then they’ll hand the subject a blank card and still hear moving commentaries, but from a much smaller group. More often, the blank card gets no reaction because there’s no stimulus to the imagination. Officials must be that blank card today. Whenever they’re in public they must portray impartiality. Supervisors are telling us that touching a person any differently on the field than you would in the office or gym or church can bring that impartiality into question. Like Krejci says, that question of propriety doesn’t have to have an answer. Like Crush says, people want to see us fit the bill, so back-patting, group hugging or an arm around the waist doesn’t cut it anymore. Many of the referees who would push back on a hands-off policy would argue, “I gotta be me.” Asking them to keep their hands in their pockets would be like asking them to work the game on crutches, as the rationale goes. Crush, for one, disagrees. He sees all sorts of Type A personalities walk in off the street and manage to comply with federation policy. It’s just another rule to enforce, albeit a personal one. The reality is that 50 people could have been interviewed for this story with the likelihood of few, if any, disagreeing that an absolute no-touching policy is best. Most people at a game have no idea what officials are thinking, and few can hear what they say, but they can see what they do and what they look like. Body type is equated with fitness. Sculpting of signals is a measure of commitment. Mannerisms are a predictor of emotion. Invading someone’s personal space with a pat or a full-length hug is an indication of what? Those other things tie to what people expect an official to do, while touching a person goes outside the lines. It’s more likely to be considered a sign of personal interest: That’s not the image assigners want, nor is it what most officials want. Not touching someone, other than when it’s the polite thing to do, is the order of the day. Remember this: What would someone you care about think if they were told where you had your hands on another person, without telling them you were working a game when you did it? If you would have some explaining to do, you probably shouldn’t have been doing it. Use your head, not your hands.

Lots of memories, but “best?” Certainly not, although the atmosphere was very good back in the day. The playing surface itself sucked, as you well know. They let the grass grow unbelievably long to disguise the unevenness of the surface. Because it was in a bowl, grass that long never really dried out. And if it actually rained? Forget it.

Just curious. How many eyes did those fish have, and where were they located?

Sure hope he didn’t eat them!

Watson’s attorney has started the process of attempting to obtain the names of the plaintiffs accusing him. In a normal civil lawsuit, the first thing that happens after the complaint is filed is the defendant’s filing of an answer to the allegations of the complaint. But that hasn’t happened yet here, and won’t for quite some time. Without knowing the plaintiffs’ names, it’s impossible for Watson to accurately answer the complaints, let alone conduct the exhaustive discovery that will, no doubt, follow. I expect the judge will order disclosure of the names, but in restricted fashion, under what’s called a “protective order.” The order will set out conditions for allowing Watson to do the discovery and investigation he needs to defend himself, while attempting to protect the plaintiffs as much as possible. Of course, it won’t work. Unless the cases settle quickly, the names will become known. There are going to be too many people involved to keep the names secret for very long. It’s going to be a real sh*t show if it doesn’t get ended quickly. One other observation: the statement from Watson’s attorney that Watson didn’t “force, coerce or intimidate anyone to do anything against their will,” is potentially a signal that Watson’s defense will be that the acts were consensual. That creates another issue: it may, if believed, allow him to escape criminal and civil legal problems. But it won’t square him with the NFL’s personal conduct policy, and it won’t get him his endorsements back. According to Forbes, Watson made about $8 million off the field last season. If he admits to having some sort of sexual contact with 20+ women to whom he paid money, he’s going to end up with a lengthy suspension. I would guess at least a year. A year’s salary, lost endorsements, civil settlements, legal fees, etc. you might be talking about a total loss of over $50 million! Those better have been pretty good massages. https://sports.yahoo.com/deshaun-watsons-attorney-seeks-identities-of-civil-accusers-says-qb-is-victim-of-trial-by-press-conference-202504773.html Deshaun Watson’s attorney seeks identities of civil accusers, says QB is victim of 'trial by press conference' HOUSTON — In a motion that represents the first legal cannon shot aimed at defending Deshaun Watson, the attorney for the Houston Texans quarterback asked a judge on Thursday to compel one of Watson’s still-anonymous accusers to shed a protective “Jane Doe” pseudonym and refile her civil lawsuit under her legal name. The legal brief filed by Watson’s attorney, Rusty Hardin, was directed at the seventh woman to bring a civil case against the quarterback. It represents what is expected to ultimately be a more sweeping move to force the remaining 20 “Jane Doe” plaintiffs to reveal themselves in court filings. As it stands, two of Watson’s accusers — Ashley Solis and Lauren Baxley — have already revealed their identities, doing so in statements delivered at a Tuesday news conference arranged by their attorney, Tony Buzbee. Each of the 22 women who have filed civil suits have done so with Buzbee acting as their legal representation. In a statement provided to the media on the heels of the motion, Hardin said that Watson didn’t “force, coerce or intimidate anyone to do anything against their will.” Hardin’s media statement: “We have said this before and we want to say it again: Deshaun did not force, coerce or intimidate anyone to do anything against their will. When we asked Mr. Buzbee to identify his clients weeks ago, he refused and told us to file a motion. Today we filed that motion. As discussed in our filing, Mr. Buzbee’s use of anonymous lawsuits violates Texas law and the basic concept of fairness. It is clear that, for Mr. Buzbee, this case has never been about seeking justice in a courtroom, but destroying Deshaun’s reputation to enhance his own public profile and enrich himself. While I understand that anonymity often is used as a shield for victims, Mr. Buzbee is using it as a sword. While shielding his clients from public scrutiny, Mr. Buzbee continues to use their anonymous allegations to destroy Mr. Watson. This is simply not right. And we look forward to resolving these matters in court.” In his legal motion, Hardin criticizes Buzbee for his attacks on Watson, which have included a multitude of allegations in Buzbee’s legal filings. He has alleged that the quarterback committed sexual assault, displayed harassing behavior, deleted social media messages and made attempts to settle some of the complaints against him. Hardin also suggested that the women do not have the legal backing to make civil accusations about Watson while continuing to conceal their identities, stating that only minors can have their names shielded from the public during civil suits alleging sexual assault. “[Buzbee’s] incessant public attacks on Mr. Watson have not stopped,” Hardin’s motion states. “Lacking the desire to present his case in a court of law — where concepts of fundamental fairness apply — Mr. Buzbee is intent on conducting discovery by Facebook and trial by press conference. He is asking the public to act as judge and jury without ever allowing Mr. Watson to responsibly respond. Because [Buzbee] filed the actions anonymously, Mr. Watson’s counsel can only speculate about [the accuser’s] identity.” Hardin goes on to argue that the anonymity would leave Watson guessing at the identity of his accusers and that raises the risk of involuntarily drawing an innocent person into a “media frenzy” if the quarterback guesses incorrectly and publicly names the wrong person while defending himself. Hardin is asking a judge to give Watson a chance to publicly address his accuser — and likely all of his accusers, if this motion is granted — while using their real names and corresponding background information that would provide a defense. “Mr. Buzbee, hiding behind this anonymity, has attempted to try this case in the court of public opinion rather than in a court of law,” the filing reads. “He has held multiple press conferences and selectively released misleading excerpts of alleged evidence to the public regarding the allegations made in this case. Mr. Buzbee has consistently used social media posts to thrust the allegations of this case into public view. He begs people to reserve judgement about his clients, while deliberately and publicly attacking Mr. Watson and seeking to get the public at large to rush to judgment. Only when it seemingly benefits his public display does he selectively release crumbs of information about his clients.” Hardin has asked the court to consider Watson’s motion and compel the refiling of “Jane Doe No. 7” in expedited fashion. If the motion is granted, it’s expected Hardin will seek for all of the anonymous civil suits to be refiled with the legal names of the accusers attached.

With the trade of Sam Darnold to Carolina, Teddy Bridgewater becomes expendable. They won’t cut him because of the “dead money” that will leave on their cap. But they certainly could trade him. His contract runs through the 2022-23 season, but his guaranteed money runs out after this season, so he’d be an easy cut next year, if it comes to that. His base salary is $17 million and his prorated guaranteed bonus this coming season is $5 million. Are the Bears interested?

Remember it well.

That’ll be a war.