Bobref

Yeah, I’m still preoccupied by the fact they went to 7 divisions.

As it turns out, St. X faded and let Moeller move into the #1 seed, and Moeller survived the Regional. Final Four in Ohio Div. VII: Lakewood St. Edward, Upper Arlington, Springfield, and Archbishop Moeller. Cal preps has projected the Eagles as at least 2 TDs better than any of the other 3. But it would be nice to get a crack at Moeller in the championship game, since their OT victory over St. Ed’s is the only blemish on the Eagles’ record. Revenge is a dish best served cold. And it will be very cold in Tom Benson Hall of Fame Stadium in Canton on Dec. 4.

Look at you two, getting all “rulesy” on us!

I have a theory, but it is potentially controversial, and it’s just my opinion. I get in enough trouble round here without looking for more.

On this we can agree. And I hope it ignites a new push for a conference affiliation.

If you stand on the sidelines, and you’ve seen a lot of football, it’s easy to see. More organized. Better prepared. They get into a tough spot, there’s no panic, just execution. More self-assured. Oh, did I mention better at football?

I wish I had the patience to find the post where @temptationsaid he could see the Irish with 5-6 losses this season. I didn’t dream that, did I?

I think it goes well beyond strength of schedule. You can tell the difference when the MIC or HCC team gets off the bus. You can tell the difference in their pregame warmup. You can tell the difference in the way they conduct themselves on the sideline. You can tell the difference in the way they are prepared for situational football. And you can tell in the way they execute even the small details. For some reason, their football is on a different level than the DAC.

That is hilarious. Haven’t seen that yet. Maybe next weekend ? 😂😅😆

The crew had a very nice game. This was their first semistate, and the stage was not too big for them at all. Weather was above average for semistate weekend, in my experience.

I’d like to see him play against the Grant kid at Merrillville … who is going to Michigan. City didn’t have anyone who could challenge him.

10 years ago, when I was still working, I observed that the DAC and the HCC were approximately equivalent levels, the tier below the MIC. Whether it was true then or not, it’s certainly not true now. I was on the field for the Westfield - Merrillville game last year, and the Zionsville - Michigan City game last night. Those teams operate on a completely different level than the cream of the DAC. It is obvious from the moment they walk out on the field.

That’s a bunch of high school kids — some of whom just played the last football game they’ll ever play — that you’re referring to as “trash.” It costs nothing to be a gracious winner. Try it sometime.

Rule change this year: “It is legal for a player positioned directly behind the snapper to conserve time by intentionally throwing the ball forward to the ground immediately after receiving the snap that has neither been muffed nor touched the ground.”

Zionsville pulling away from Michigan City. 35-9 with 10:05 left in the 3rd.

No, they’re not. A 2-time state finals crew, odds are good they’ll be in LOS next weekend.

70 yd. pass play by Zionsville. 14-3 1:03 of the 1st.

Michigan City drives following the opening kickoff and gets a field goal. Zionsville answers with a long TD drive. 7-3 Zionsville. 2:59 of the 1st.

Raising the ball over the Referee’s head is the official signal that the period has ended.

SSDD

You gotta’ love this!

No.

I’m thinking you’re going to see a very well officiated game. This crew is working their first semistate as a crew. But several of their officials have worked multiple state finals on other crews. The Head Linesman is particularly talented.

Coaches, if you're going to try this, please bring it up with the officials in the pregame conference so that there are no surprises out there, and everyone can have a calm discussion about what constitutes illegal forward handing, and what does not.

We are in the process of identifying and explaining the flaws in the current coaches' vote system, the primary differentiator in the playoff officials selection and advancement process. Here's is #2 on the list: 2. Coaches are not unbiased: outcomes influence perceptions. There is little doubt that coaches are heavily invested in the outcome of their games. Coaches’ passion for their teams is one of the things that makes high school football great. But that passion is the very antithesis of objective evaluation when it comes to officiating performance. It should surprise no one to learn that coaches’ evaluations of officiating performance are affected by the outcome of the game. Studies in other fields have shown that an adverse outcome significantly affects one’s perception of the events leading up to that outcome. Simply put, the coach of the losing team consistently rates officiating performances lower than the coach of the winning team in the same game. I’m not aware of any scientific studies specific to the field of evaluating officiating performance. But anecdotally, I can tell you that I was a Referee and crew chief of a very successful crew for 25+ years. For much of that time we provided each coach at every game with a comment form with a prepaid mailing envelope, asking for an evaluation of our performance. It asked for a numeric grade in a number of categories, as well as having a space for comments. I kept track of those things and shared them with the crew each week. Over the course of at least a couple hundred games, our scores averaged about 20%-25% lower by the losing coach than the winning coach in the same game. It is hardly breaking news that a negative outcome adversely affects the perception of officiating performance. Compare the number of complaints about officiating you hear from the losing fans as opposed to those on the winning side. This is not a knock on coaches. Rather, it is a recognition of basic human nature that our perception is affected by the disappointment of an unfavorable outcome. But that reality undermines the suitability of coaches as objective evaluators of officiating performance.