Bobref

I tell people about that game, and they look at me like I dreamed the whole thing. Otis Armstrong running in a screen pass from about 60 yds. out, and they had to drag the unconscious Pete out of the end zone so they could play the try. The bands brawling, players and fans duking it out on the field, chaos in the stands. What a game!

I could never find Purdue Pete scary … since my lasting memory of him is of a couple of IU students braining Pete with his own sledgehammer, and then the Purdue cheerleaders dragging an unconscious Pete out the back of the south end zone in Bloomington. All this during the brawl that was the Bucket game in 1971 — the greatest college football game that nobody knows about.

All suggestions for improvement in the manual are welcome, and will be addressed during the off-season. We anticipate annual revisions. So, for now …

Not if it results in a delay in play, it’s not. This comes directly from the top. Penalize it and report it to Mr. Faulkens. I have it on very good authority that the crew on the Munster - LC game somehow got wind that this might be happening, and talked to the LC coach and told him what would happen. A coach then addressed the student section and subsequently told the crew the situation was being “handled.” Turns out, it wasn’t.

It seems the latest thing is for the students to bring talcum powder to the game, and when the team scores for the first time, they let loose a big cloud of white dust. Only thing is that the stuff hangs in the air and takes a while to dissipate. The Lake Central — Munster game was held up for 5 minutes Friday because visibility was so poor on the field. A word of warning: the IHSAA is very aware of this phenomenon. If your students do it, it will earn you a 15 yd. penalty right then, and your AD is going to get a call from Asst. Commissioner Faulkens that is going to get his work week off to a really lousy start.

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.