Bobref

Please. I can debate anything. 😄😂 Sounds like Carroll got a heavy dose of “Bart Ball.” A lot of teams have had a tough time with that over the years. The guy can coach.

Perry Meridian is playing for a sectional championship ... and they are 0-9! I would go out on a limb and say that never in the history of Indiana football has a team ever recorded their only victory of the season in a sectional championship game. ... Of course, they’ll have to beat Ben Davis to do it. But still ...

The reason I asked about the enforcement is that the penalties for the two fouls are enforced differently. Aiding the runner is a live ball foul. It almost always occurs behind the spot where the run ends, so the 5 yd penalty is enforced from the spot of the foul and the down is replayed. If there is a distance penalty involved in a sideline warning, it is enforced as of it were a dead ball foul, i.e., 5 yds from the spot where the ball is at the end of the play, and the down counts.

There seems to be some disagreement on that point. What yardage penalty was enforced, and from what spot?

Sideline warning is Signal 15 Aiding the runner is Signal 44

Merrillville 37 Crown Point 0 at halftime.

Details?

Merrillville 16 Crown Point 0 8:28 1st period

Merrillville 7 Crown Point 0 10:35 1st period

The rule does not specify a height. If the first bounce is high enough to be mistaken for a kick popped up directly off the tee, it’s a foul.

You may be surprised to learn that there are many cases where it’s not quite so clear cut.

Because ACC protocol won’t allow it ... at least, not without multiple additional positives. I think Dabo is the south end of a northbound horse, but he would never allow that to happen.

No chance.

Hence, the reason SCOTUS Justices serve during “good behavior,” and not for a defined term or at the pleasure of the President (or the voters), as do all Article III judges. This makes them relatively immune from shifting political winds. Once they put on the robe, no one has any leverage over them any more. The people who believe they can predict with certainty how ACB will line up on the upcoming cases will be right most — but not all — of the time.

Everyone assumes that they know how ACB would line up on certain issues. Just keep in mind that there have been some famous instances where a Justice performed quite differently than the appointing President expected. Justice Souter is an example. On a much larger scale, conservative Republican Dwight Eisenhower named Earl Warren as Chief Justice, and he led the Court during one of the most “liberal” periods in the Court’s history. Eisenhower referred to it as one of his biggest mistakes in office. What a lot of people have a difficult time grasping is that the Court doesn’t rule on laws or policies in a vacuum. The Court decides cases. And the specific facts of those cases often drive the decision-making. At bottom, the Court does not make sweeping or philosophical pronouncements. The Court decides the cases brought before it, and leaves the interpretations, extrapolations, and applications of those decisions to others... until another case comes along.

I’m sure if there’s any way he can play, he will. But the ACC policy says “at least” 10 days, and he does have symptoms. “The rules established by the ACC's medical advisory group require anyone testing positive for COVID-19 to isolate for at least 10 days after the test before returning to practice, assuming they no longer are showing symptoms. That would also put Lawrence at risk for missing the Nov. 7 showdown with No. 4 Notre Dame.“ (emphasis supplied.)

He’s required to isolate 10 days before he can practice. That means he’ll miss their game against Boston College this weekend. His status is uncertain for the big one at Notre Dame Nov. 7. https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/30219908/trevor-lawrence-positive-covid-19-miss-boston-college-clemson

My guess is he would advocate a nutrition-based regimen ... centered around lard.

It would seem to me that there is an implicit assumption that in some cases gender reassignment can result in a competitive advantage. Just wondering if there’s any empirical evidence on the subject. I doubt the IHSAA reinvented the wheel in coming up with their policy.

The quote from then-Commissioner Cox says that the new inquiry and policy is to insure that no unfair competitive advantage is gained. Obviously, keeping the playing field level is a legitimate concern of the IHSAA. I don’t know enough about the subject to have a truly informed opinion. Are there studies, sports medicine literature, etc., on the effect of gender reassignment on athletic performance? Because it seems to me that’s the issue here.

Yeah, it’s not. Congress fixed the number at 9 about 150 yrs. ago. Somehow, we’ve managed to get by with that number since.

A constitutional amendment in the current political climate is probably a non-starter. If I were to favor any change like that, it would be a mandatory retirement age, not a term limit.

I would, in all sincerity, like to hear from someone - anyone - who thinks that scenario is a good idea. I mean, good for the republic.

Holcomb is a Pence sock puppet.

You defy the Ping Pong Ball gods at your own risk!