Bobref

This is the harassment statute in question: Harassment occurs when an individual, who intends to harass, annoy, or alarm another person (but without any intent of legitimate communication), engages in the following: Makes a phone call (regardless of whether a conversation ensues); Communicates with a person by telegraph, mail, or other form of written communication; Transmits an obscene message, or indecent words on a Citizens Radio service channel; or Uses a computer network, or other form of electronic communication to communicate with a person or transmit an obscene message or indecent words to a person.

The Munster Mustangs’ swim team is referred to as the “Seahorses.”

Enforcement of the quarters rule is not within the purview of game officials. I assume you were talking about the use of #13 as an interior lineman.

Don’t forget that Tony Kornheiser spent much of his career in the Baltimore/D.C. area. He’s just a sour grapes former Baltimore Colts fan.

You completely misread the intent of my post. If a team is going to be demoralized by a running clock, they are very likely already demoralized by being behind so far that the running clock kicks in. Not saying there aren’t a few exceptions. But you don’t make a rule for the few exceptions, you make it for the overwhelming majority of cases. The good the mercy rule does: takes the onus off of the coaches who will be second- and third-guessed whatever decision they make, minimizes the risk of injury when a team is just physically outclassed, reduces some of the hard feelings that might otherwise arise in a blowout, and which tend to escalate as time winds down in the game, far outweighs the few and far between exceptions.

@Muda69, this one is made for you. It’s got race, drugs, the police state, social media, and the First Amendment, all rolled into one. Discuss: https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/moms-facebook-harassment-conviction-splits-appellate-panel?utm_source=news-update&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=2019-08-27 Mom’s Facebook harassment conviction splits appellate panel August 27, 2019 | Katie Stancombe A mother who made threatening social media posts toward a police officer after her son’s death has lost an appeal of her harassment conviction. The Indiana Court of Appeals divided on the sufficiency of evidence supporting her conviction, with a dissenting judge declaring the state’s criminal harassment statute “unconstitutionally overbroad and facially invalid because it is susceptible of prohibiting protected expression.” Constance McGuire was convicted of Class B misdemeanor harassment after she posted on Facebook that members of the Kokomo Police Department “better watch out” and that “this mother is on a rampage and ready to shoot and kill.” McGuire took to social media after the death of her son, who died after consuming methamphetamine during a traffic stop in which Kokomo police officer Jeramie Dodd was involved. Upon her son’s death, McGuire made a Facebook post that included several threats against Dodd that were later reported to police by one of McGuire’s more than 1,000 Facebook friends. The Indiana Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in the case last month, considering McGuire’s argument on appeal that her specific Facebook posts were constitutionally protected and that her conviction amounted to an unconstitutional impairment of speech. An appellate panel consisting of Judges L. Mark Bailey, Patricia Riley and Rudolph Pyle III split on McGuire’s conviction, with the majority affirming the trial court in Constance J Mcguire v. State of Indiana,18A-CR-02554. First, the majority concluded that McGuire had the expectation that the offending conduct would come to the attention of Dodd when she transmitted the messages online. It additionally found her “profanity-laced threat” urged Dodd to commit suicide, which the majority considered as obscene under Indiana Code § 35-45-2-2(a)(4)(B). However, Pyle dissented in a separate opinion, finding no evidence was introduced showing McGuire’s Facebook posts fit within an unprotected category. Specifically, Pyle noted that the state failed by charging McGuire with harassment instead of intimidation, and that the harassment statute is “unconstitutionally overbroad.” Story Continues Below The dissenting judge continued to argue that the “true threat” analysis did not apply to the case and the state did not present sufficient evidence of McGuire’s intent. “This dissent does not condone the disturbing, crass statements made by McGuire about Officer Dodd,” Pyle wrote in his dissent. “However, our primary duty is to uphold the principles enshrined in the Federal and State Constitutions. When a statute falls short, this Court has a duty to reverse a conviction, even if it might leave a sour taste in one’s mouth.” But in affirming, the majority found McGuire’s speech amounted to a constitutionally proscribable true threat and that her speech could be regulated consistent with federal constitutional principles. “… n view of the true threat contained in the speech, there is sufficient evidence McGuire lacked the intent to engage in ‘legitimate communication’ with regard to the United States Constitution,” Bailey wrote for the majority. “Moreover, because the speech was not unambiguously political and posed a threat to safety, there is sufficient evidence McGuire lacked the intent to engage in ‘legitimate communication’ with regard to the Indiana Constitution,” the majority concluded. It therefore found no failure of proof and determined McGuire’s conviction concerned proscribable speech.

Show me a team that is not demoralized when they’re down by at least 35 points in the 2nd half, and I’ll show you a team that is not demoralized by a running clock.

To expound on this, under NFHS rules, a personal foul results in ejection if the foul is “flagrant,” meaning that it carries with it a significant risk of injury. Some of the examples of “flagrant” fouls in the rule book are: 1. Illegal helmet contact against an opponent lying on the ground, 2. Illegal helmet contact against an opponent being held up by other players, and/or 3. Illegal helmet-to-helmet contact against a defenseless opponent. Disqualification is not mandatory. It’s a judgment call.

This is one of the differences between high school and college officiating. Obviously, there are many very good, dedicated high school officials. But by and large college officials are better, more dedicated, do more to prepare, etc. Because of the relatively uneven quality of officiating in high school, the powers that be are less likely to approve departures from the black and white of the rule book, less likely to rely on officiating judgment, less likely to let philosophy dictate the call. So, college supervisors can say, “we’re going to just shut this down, enforce, and go from there.” But in high school, if you’re going to have consistency, you end up adhering more closely to the letter of the rule book.

“Some” probably would agree. Some would not. For the most part, if the Mercy Rule is invoked, the kids still play hard. It’s just not necessarily the same kids, and they don’t play quite as long.

You hear the TV guys say “the ground can’t cause a fumble.” Basically, they have it right for once.

What is the dead ball foul that has supposedly been committed?

We’ve all been there.

Clearly, the ruling by the covering official is that the runner was down by forward progress before the ball came out. That is supportable on this clip. Had it been ruled a fumble and a recovery, that would also be supportable. This is just one of those judgment calls that gets made all the time ... and is always controversial. Can”t tell from the brief clip whether the crew handled it correctly from a mechanics standpoint. But I have no issue with the call itself.

I said “more likely” rather than “certainly,” which of course leaves open the possibility of crew error. I was speaking from my own experience as to which explanation had the higher probability. I’ll stand by that.

That would be terrific. Although I don’t suppose you can hear a whistle in the video.

Hearing a number of reports of how the Mercy Rule May have been incorrectly administered as far as timing goes. We did use the rule in the game I saw Friday night. The crew did a great job with it ... except for one thing. The R did not include mercy rule timing procedures in his pregame discussion with the clock operator. Every school in the state got a sheet of timing instructions from the IHSAA to provide to the clock operators. But you can’t depend on that. Because, judging from my game experience, the clock operator either never saw it, or didn’t understand it.

Love to hear some specifics on this one.

Care to elaborate with some specifics?

One positive aspect of the mercy rule — at least, from my viewpoint — we won’t have the endless debates on the GID about whether someone ran up the score on someone else.

More likely, an error by the clock operator. Here are proper clock mechanics for the mercy rule: If at the halftime break, or anytime following, the score differential is 35 or more, the game clock will run continually, stopping only for scores, time outs, or injuries. The only person to stop the clock during application of the mercy rule is the Referee (White Hat). Following a touchdown, the clock will run through the PAT. Following the PAT, the Referee will stop the game clock. The continuous clock will resume at the ensuing kickoff with the kick. Normally, on a free kick, the game clock does not start until the kick is touched by the receivers. While the Mercy Rule is in effect, however, on a free kick the game clock will start as soon as the ball is kicked. Following a successful Field Goal attempt, the Referee will stop the game clock. The continuous game clock will resume at the ensuing kickoff and the game clock will continue to run. Following a safety, the Referee will stop the game clock. The continuous game clock will resume at the ensuing kickoff and the clock will continue to run.

And good luck to the third team on the field!

Yes, I had a very good view of the back of Desmond Tardy’s uniform as it was disappearing in the distance ... repeatedly.

I also think the Cowboys extending Jaylon was a shot across Zeke’s bow.

As it turned out, he was fortunate that he was drafted in the second round, rather than the first. So, the Cowboys only had control of him for 4 years instead of 5. And they’re saving the franchise tag for Zeke.