Bobref

Any change will be difficult to detect on a game by game basis. Neither the rules nor their interpretations have changed.

We’re supposed to be a little less forgiving on passes that appear to be “thrown away.” But from our standpoint, the emphasis is on the process the crew uses to determine whether there was a foul or not. I find it curious that this would be a POE at the same time there are a couple of states authorized by the NF to experiment with rules like the NCAA and NFL have.

?????

Looks like the officiating was perfect in Week One. 🤣 Now we’ve got to figure out how to improve on that.

Bump.

Nah! This is the guy you want.

The curmudgeon inside of me trying desperately to get out would say that gambling represents a potential windfall, i.e., something valuable that can be gotten with little or no effort. The cynic in me says it’s the marketing that portrays gambling as an exciting and basically mainstream activity. A third reason is that for most of my youth, the government took steps to discourage gambling, e.g., prosecuting gambling offenses. Now, the government actually is in the gambling business. So, whatever stigma was associated with it has long since gone.

The run to championship level is a marathon, not a sprint.

Patience, grasshopper.

“All things come to he who waits.”

At least you got the hierarchy correct. 😆

Not a great deal different from the regular home uniform. That’s OK by me. You can’t improve on perfection. https://irishsportsdaily.com/s/15589/notre-dame-releases-2021-shamrock-series-uniforms

How many factors did the decision cite that led to the conclusion that it did not violate equal protection? That was one. How many others were there? I’ll sit down and wait for an answer.

I could not disagree more. Anyone reading this decision would have to conclude that even such a blunt instrument as a class bump or multiplier would be constitutional. The problem is you are misreading the significance of the “animus” component. Animus directed toward private schools is perfectly legal, or at least, constitutional. It is animus toward a protected category — such as race or religion — that calls for “strict scrutiny” as opposed to the “rational basis” test. If the IHSAA enacted a 1 class bump only for Catholic schools, then we could talk. But a one class bump of all private schools, faith-based or not, requires only a rational (if clumsy) relationship to the identified problem to pass constitutional muster. By the way, I got the A* in my Constitutional Law class at IU. True, that was in 1975, but hey, it’s still the same Constitution. 😅😂🤣

Your legal analysis is half right. The Brentwood case could well result in the IHSAA being determined to be a “state actor” for these purposes, i.e., an agency of the government, and therefore the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment apply. But your conclusion that, as a result, an across-the-board 1 class bump for all P/Ps would be subject to a constitutional challenge is likely wrong. Of course, we wouldn’t know for sure unless it actually happened, but the language used by a federal judge in a 2018 case in which a public school sued the Alabama state association is pretty telling. Alabama instituted a 1 class bump for a number of private schools, based on historical success. In other words, a combination of a class bump and the success factor. The rule applied only to private schools, regardless of whether there were public schools with similar track records of success. In denying a preliminary injunction to prevent the rule from being implemented, here’s what the district judge said: “Upon careful consideration of the parties’ arguments and exhibits, the Court concludes that preliminary injunctive relief is not appropriate at this time. A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, for which a movant bears a heavy burden of persuasion. In this case, St. Paul’s has failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. With respect to the equal protection claim, St. Paul’s has made an insufficient showing that the Association was motivated by “bare animus” against private schools; therefore, the challenged classification must be evaluated using deferential rational-basis review. Under this standard, the competitive balance rule is presumed constitutional, and must be upheld if any reasonably conceivable set of facts could provide a rational basis for it, even if the rule seems unwise and even though it works to a particular group’s disadvantage. The AHSAA has a legitimate interest in promoting competitive balance for its members. The challenged rule could rationally be viewed as furthering that legitimate interest. Indeed, the requisite rational basis may be found in data reflecting private schools’ disproportionate and ever-growing success in winning state championships, as well as in the numerous perceived advantages enjoyed by private schools relative to public schools. St. Paul’s has not shown a substantial likelihood that it can negate every one of those rational grounds for adoption of the competitive balance rule. St. Paul's Episcopal Sch. v. Ala. High Sch. Ath. Ass'n, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107003. The lesson this case teaches us is that a state association’s rule designed to correct a perception of unfair competitive advantages on the part of public schools will be legal if it has any rational connection to solving the problem. Doesn’t have to be a perfect solution. Doesn’t have to be the best solution. Doesn’t even have to be a good solution. Just some rational connection to the problem. So, a 1 class bump for all P/Ps, while it is, IMO, unfair, unwise, and overkill for the perceived problem, is nonetheless legal under the US Constitution.

There is a report circulating that the Henry County (New Castle) Health Dept. has ordered all sporting events and practices canceled. No re-opening date set yet. New Castle is scheduled to host Franklin County Friday night.

One of our observers was asked a question by an official who observed a drone being used at the scrimmage he worked: legal or illegal? He sought clarification from the IHSAA and received the word: Drones are not per se illegal when used in connection with a contest. However, they may not fly directly over the field or stands. Whether any drone use is permitted on premises beyond that is within the jurisdiction of game management - not the game officials. Check with the host AD before you take off. Drone use is also subject to local and state laws, as well as FAA regulations.

Well, there really shouldn’t be any … yet. But we’ll have a separate thread each week for questions, observations, and even a few complaints. But keep in mind, you need to give us something a little more specific than “those refs sucked. We had 11 penalties, and they only had 4!” If you’re just bitching, you will be openly ridiculed. Fair warning. The more specific information you can give about the situation, the more likely it is the discussion generated will be informative. And that’s the goal. I’d really like to hear some observations about implementation of the new rule affecting blocking below the waist in the free blocking zone. Also, this year’s points of emphasis: intentional grounding, illegal formations, and ineligible downfield.

Find me one school, on any issue, that has ever “taken one for the team” when it was not in their own self interest to do so.

I wouldn’t dismiss the significance of the fact that Brentwood ultimately lost, because the Court placed heavy emphasis on the fact that Brentwood had voluntarily agreed to the rule it ultimately violated, just like the IHSAA members would voluntarily agree on SF, a multiplier, a bump, or whatever.

I agree that the SF is a sound concept, but the implementation has been flawed. The 2 yr. cycle is too short to detect — and promote — true “program” success, as opposed to what might be the short term effect of a single outlier class.

I get it. Football is a zero sum game. Anything one competitor gets, another has to give up. I’m fine with leaving 6A the way it is. Just wanted to point out that the effect of the proposal would be felt in 5A, not 6A.

Any change in 6A is likely to be so small as to be undetectable. Look up the smallest 8 schools in 6A and see what they’ve done in the 6A tournament. But move them into 5A and you have the potential to dramatically affect how that tournament proceeds. The change will be in 5A, not 6A.

We have been over this many times, and the logic doesn’t change. If the purpose of considering things like multipliers, the success factor, the “one class bump,” etc., is to move toward a balance where relatively similar teams — within reason — compete against one another, the SF is obviously the most efficient and targeted way to do that. The reason is simple. The SF does not depend on the presence or absence of theoretical “advantages” that are impossible to quantify, or “advantages” that exist, but which are not fully utilized by the schools to achieve athletic success. Rather, the SF only kicks in when advantages are utilized with the result that a team is able to consistently punch above its weight class, for whatever reason. In other words, multipliers or class bumps adjust classes for the possibility that a school has advantages which, if properly utilized, give it a leg up competitively. The SF, in contrast, adjusts those schools that actually use their advantages to excel. One is theoretical, the other is real world.

I don’t think it’s quite that simple. The court decisions in which state high school associations have been found to be ”state actors” for purposes related to litigation have, by and large, been eligibility cases, where one individual challenges a decision that restricts the individual’s ability to participate. In cases where an association is dealing with its own member schools, on the other hand, courts generally take a hands off approach, reasoning that the way in which voluntary membership organizations structure their internal workings is none of their business.