Bobref

We have a new leader in the clubhouse for the greatest non sequitur in the history of the GID.

@Howe and @DannEllenwood, still maintain that there’s no science behind the concept of universal masking? You need to travel outside the boundaries of the State of Denial. This study was published yesterday. If it’s too complicated for you, let me know and I’ll dumb it down. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6498/1422 Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Kimberly A. Prather1, Chia C. Wang2,3, Robert T. Schooley4 See all authors and affiliations Science 26 Jun 2020: Vol. 368, Issue 6498, pp. 1422-1424 DOI: 10.1126/science.abc6197 Correctly fitted masks are an important tool to reduce airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2, particularly in enclosed spaces, such as on this Moscow Metro train in Russia. PHOTO: SERGEI FADEICHEV/TASS VIA GETTY IMAGES Respiratory infections occur through the transmission of virus-containing droplets (>5 to 10 µm) and aerosols (≤5 µm) exhaled from infected individuals during breathing, speaking, coughing, and sneezing. Traditional respiratory disease control measures are designed to reduce transmission by droplets produced in the sneezes and coughs of infected individuals. However, a large proportion of the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) appears to be occurring through airborne transmission of aerosols produced by asymptomatic individuals during breathing and speaking (1—3). Aerosols can accumulate, remain infectious in indoor air for hours, and be easily inhaled deep into the lungs. For society to resume, measures designed to reduce aerosol transmission must be implemented, including universal masking and regular, widespread testing to identify and isolate infected asymptomatic individuals. Humans produce respiratory droplets ranging from 0.1 to 1000 µm. A competition between droplet size, inertia, gravity, and evaporation determines how far emitted droplets and aerosols will travel in air (4, 5). Larger respiratory droplets will undergo gravitational settling faster than they evaporate, contaminating surfaces and leading to contact transmission. Smaller droplets and aerosols will evaporate faster than they can settle, are buoyant, and thus can be affected by air currents, which can transport them over longer distances. Thus, there are two major respiratory virus transmission pathways: contact (direct or indirect between people and with contaminated surfaces) and airborne inhalation. In addition to contributing to the extent of dispersal and mode of transmission, respiratory droplet size has been shown to affect the severity of disease. For example, influenza virus is more commonly contained in aerosols with sizes below 1 µm (submicron), which lead to more severe infection (4). In the case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), it is possible that submicron virus-containing aerosols are being transferred deep into the alveolar region of the lungs, where immune responses seem to be temporarily bypassed. SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to replicate three times faster than SARS-CoV-1 and thus can rapidly spread to the pharynx, from which it can be shed before the innate immune response becomes activated and produces symptoms (6). By the time symptoms occur, the patient has transmitted the virus without knowing. Identifying infected individuals to curb SARS-CoV-2 transmission is more challenging compared to SARS and other respiratory viruses because infected individuals can be highly contagious for several days, peaking on or before symptoms occur (2, 7). These “silent shedders” could be critical drivers of the enhanced spread of SARS-CoV-2. In Wuhan, China, it has been estimated that undiagnosed cases of COVID-19 infection, who were presumably asymptomatic, were responsible for up to 79% of viral infections (3). Therefore, regular, widespread testing is essential to identify and isolate infected asymptomatic individuals. Airborne transmission was determined to play a role during the SARS outbreak in 2003 (1, 4). However, many countries have not yet acknowledged airborne transmission as a possible pathway for SARS-CoV-2 (1). Recent studies have shown that in addition to droplets, SARS-CoV-2 may also be transmitted through aerosols. A study in hospitals in Wuhan, China, found SARS-CoV-2 in aerosols further than 6 feet from patients, with higher concentrations detected in more crowded areas (8). Estimates using an average sputum viral load for SARS-CoV-2 indicate that 1 min of loud speaking could generate >1000 virion-containing aerosols (9). Assuming viral titers for infected super-emitters (with 100-fold higher viral load than average) yields an increase to more than 100,000 virions in emitted droplets per minute of speaking. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for social distancing of 6 feet and hand washing to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 are based on studies of respiratory droplets carried out in the 1930s. These studies showed that large, ∼100 µm droplets produced in coughs and sneezes quickly underwent gravitational settling (1). However, when these studies were conducted, the technology did not exist for detecting submicron aerosols. As a comparison, calculations predict that in still air, a 100-µm droplet will settle to the ground from 8 feet in 4.6 s, whereas a 1-µm aerosol particle will take 12.4 hours (4). Measurements now show that intense coughs and sneezes that propel larger droplets more than 20 feet can also create thousands of aerosols that can travel even further (1). Increasing evidence for SARS-CoV-2 suggests the 6 feet CDC recommendation is likely not enough under many indoor conditions, where aerosols can remain airborne for hours, accumulate over time, and follow airflows over distances further than 6 feet (5, 10). Infectious aerosol particles can be released during breathing and speaking by asymptomatic infected individuals. No masking maximizes exposure, whereas universal masking results in the least exposure. In outdoor environments, numerous factors will determine the concentrations and distance traveled, and whether respiratory viruses remain infectious in aerosols. Breezes and winds often occur and can transport infectious droplets and aerosols long distances. Asymptomatic individuals who are speaking while exercising can release infectious aerosols that can be picked up by airstreams (10). Viral concentrations will be more rapidly diluted outdoors, but few studies have been carried out on outdoor transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Additionally, SARS-CoV-2 can be inactivated by ultraviolet radiation in sunlight, and it is likely sensitive to ambient temperature and relative humidity, as well as the presence of atmospheric aerosols that occur in highly polluted areas. Viruses can attach to other particles such as dust and pollution, which can modify the aerodynamic characteristics and increase dispersion. Moreover, people living in areas with higher concentrations of air pollution have been shown to have higher severity of COVID-19 (11). Because respiratory viruses can remain airborne for prolonged periods before being inhaled by a potential host, studies are needed to characterize the factors leading to loss of infectivity over time in a variety of outdoor environments over a range of conditions Given how little is known about the production and airborne behavior of infectious respiratory droplets, it is difficult to define a safe distance for social distancing. Assuming SARS-CoV-2 virions are contained in submicron aerosols, as is the case for influenza virus, a good comparison is exhaled cigarette smoke, which also contains submicron particles and will likely follow comparable flows and dilution patterns. The distance from a smoker at which one smells cigarette smoke indicates the distance in those surroundings at which one could inhale infectious aerosols. In an enclosed room with asymptomatic individuals, infectious aerosol concentrations can increase over time. Overall, the probability of becoming infected indoors will depend on the total amount of SARS-CoV-2 inhaled. Ultimately, the amount of ventilation, number of people, how long one visits an indoor facility, and activities that affect airflow will all modulate viral transmission pathways and exposure (10). For these reasons, it is important to wear properly fitted masks indoors even when 6 feet apart. Airborne transmission could account, in part, for the high secondary transmission rates to medical staff, as well as major outbreaks in nursing facilities. The minimum dose of SARS-CoV-2 that leads to infection is unknown, but airborne transmission through aerosols has been documented for other respiratory viruses, including measles, SARS, and chickenpox (4). Airborne spread from undiagnosed infections will continuously undermine the effectiveness of even the most vigorous testing, tracing, and social distancing programs. After evidence revealed that airborne transmission by asymptomatic individuals might be a key driver in the global spread of COVID-19, the CDC recommended the use of cloth face coverings. Masks provide a critical barrier, reducing the number of infectious viruses in exhaled breath, especially of asymptomatic people and those with mild symptoms (12) (see the figure). Surgical mask material reduces the likelihood and severity of COVID-19 by substantially reducing airborne viral concentrations (13). Masks can also protect uninfected individuals from SARS-CoV-2 aerosols and droplets (13, 14). Thus, it is particularly important to wear masks in locations with conditions that can accumulate high concentrations of viruses, such as health care settings, airplanes, restaurants, and other crowded places with reduced ventilation. The aerosol filtering efficiency of different materials, thicknesses, and layers used in properly fitted homemade masks was recently found to be similar to that of the medical masks that were tested (14). Thus, the option of universal masking is no longer held back by shortages. From epidemiological data, places that have been most effective in reducing the spread of COVID-19 have implemented universal masking, including Taiwan, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and South Korea. In the battle against COVID-19, Taiwan (population 24 million, first COVID-19 case 21 January 2020) did not implement a lockdown during the pandemic, yet maintained a low incidence of 441 cases and 7 deaths (as of 21 May 2020). By contrast, the state of New York (population ∼20 million, first COVID case 1 March 2020), had a higher number of cases (353,000) and deaths (24,000). By quickly activating its epidemic response plan that was established after the SARS outbreak, the Taiwanese government enacted a set of proactive measures that successfully prevented the spread of SARS-CoV-2, including setting up a central epidemic command center in January, using technologies to detect and track infected patients and their close contacts, and perhaps most importantly, requesting people to wear masks in public places. The government also ensured the availability of medical masks by banning mask manufacturers from exporting them, implementing a system to ensure that every citizen could acquire masks at reasonable prices, and increasing the production of masks. In other countries, there have been widespread shortages of masks, resulting in most residents not having access to any form of medical mask (15). This striking difference in the availability and widespread adoption of wearing masks likely influenced the low number of COVID-19 cases. Aerosol transmission of viruses must be acknowledged as a key factor leading to the spread of infectious respiratory diseases. Evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 is silently spreading in aerosols exhaled by highly contagious infected individuals with no symptoms. Owing to their smaller size, aerosols may lead to higher severity of COVID-19 because virus-containing aerosols penetrate more deeply into the lungs (10). It is essential that control measures be introduced to reduce aerosol transmission. A multidisciplinary approach is needed to address a wide range of factors that lead to the production and airborne transmission of respiratory viruses, including the minimum virus titer required to cause COVID-19; viral load emitted as a function of droplet size before, during, and after infection; viability of the virus indoors and outdoors; mechanisms of transmission; airborne concentrations; and spatial patterns. More studies of the filtering efficiency of different types of masks are also needed. COVID-19 has inspired research that is already leading to a better understanding of the importance of airborne transmission of respiratory disease.

Freedom is awesome. It’s so awesome that I think I’ll exercise my right to free speech by going into a packed movie theater and yelling “fire!” just to see what happens. After all, I’m free and all the other people can shift for themselves. Freedom comes with some responsibility attached to it.

I hate to say I told you so, but those states that were in such a big hurry to “re-start” are paying the price now, like Texas, Arizona, and Florida: https://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20200626/florida-bans-drinking-at-bars-again-as-covid-19-cases-spike Florida bans drinking at bars again as COVID-19 cases spike The Five O’Clock Club at 1930 Hillview St. in Sarasota’s Southside Village recently reopened. Florida bars are being forced to close again as coronavirus cases spike. [PROVIDED PHOTO] By Zac Anderson Political Editor Posted at 11:33 AMUpdated at 1:02 PM Halsey Beshears, the secretary of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, made the announcement about bars on Twitter Friday. Florida is banning drinking at bars again as the state experiences a big surge in coronavirus cases. Halsey Beshears, the secretary of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, made the announcement about bars on Twitter Friday. “Effective immediately, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation is suspending on premises consumption of alcohol at bars statewide,” Beshears tweeted. Florida’s bars were shutdown for two months to try and contain the spread of the coronavirus. Gov. Ron DeSantis allowed them to reopen in early June, but since then Florida has experienced a big wave of new coronavirus cases. Florida again shattered the daily record for new cases Friday, with the state Department of Health reporting more than 8,000. Effective immediately, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation is suspending on premises consumption of alcohol at bars statewide. Bars were included in Phase 2 of the governor’s reopening plan, which also allowed movie theaters, bowling alleys, tattoo parlors and other businesses to reopen. The decision to ban drinking at bars is a reversal from what DeSantis said last week about rolling back reopening efforts. “We’re not rolling back,” DeSantis said at a news conference. DeSantis said earlier this week that DBPR would crack down on bars and other establishments that were not following reopening guidelines. The agency revoked the liquor license of a bar near the University of Central Florida where multiple employees and patrons contracted the virus. But the governor’s office appears to have concluded that stronger enforcement was not enough amid the flood of new coronavirus cases. Florida continues to set daily records for new cases, with the state topping 4,000 cases in a single day for the first time, then 5,000 and now 8,000, all in the span of just the last week. Florida has become one of the worst coronavirus hotspots in the nation. DeSantis has been playing down the surge in cases by noting that many of those infected are younger and less likely to be seriously ill. He also has pointed to the availability of hospital beds, but bed availability has started declining in parts of the state. The worsening outbreak has alarmed many health officials and policymakers. Cites and counties across the state have enacted, or are considering, new mask regulations that require facial coverings in certain public settings. DeSantis has opposed a statewide mask rule. Closing bars to everything but to-go orders is the most significant example of easing back on reopening, but it is not the only one. Sarasota Memorial Hospital announced Thursday that it will ban visitors again starting today at 6 p.m.. Sarasota Memorial was treating 36 COVID-19 patients on Thursday, more than triple the number of patients hospitalized with the disease at the beginning of the month

Although the penalty for this foul used to be 15 yds. (now 5), it was never an automatic 1st down.

You say tomato... In any event, it’s a lot more money than $40 mil. That’s chump change.

I feel the same about “repentance” as John Nance Garner felt about the vice-presidency: “it ain’t worth a bucket of warm piss.”

Wait! I thought COVID-19 was the biggest hoax in history? The bill for that will be orders of magnitude greater than $40 million.

And this is what comes from the push to re-open prematurely. The significance here is that the spike in numbers can’t be dismissed as the product of increased testing. These are actual hospitalizations. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2020/06/23/texas-hits-worrisome-new-high-5000-coronavirus-cases-in-one-day/#5ede9a2c172f Texas Hits Worrisome New High: 5,000 Coronavirus Cases In One Day Nicholas ReimannForbes Staff Texas continues to set unwanted coronavirus records as a spike this month shows no signs of slowing down, as the state reports over 5,000 new cases Tuesday for the first time since the pandemic started and set a new record high in coronavirus hospitalizations for the 12th straight day. KEY FACTS The state Department of Health Services reported 5,489 new cases Tuesday, shattering the old record of 4,430 reported on Saturday, while the 4,092 reported hospitalizations also set a record—the 12th straight day the state has reported a new record high in hospitalizations. The latest numbers—which include 28 new deaths—come a day after Gov. Greg Abbott held a sobering news conference, pleading with the state’s residents to follow social distancing guidelines. “We are at a very crucial point in time,” Dr. John Hellerstedt—the head of the state’s Department of Health Services—said at the news conference Monday, adding “the trends are going up in a way we really need to get control of.” Despite the rise in hospitalizations, there is still ample room in hospitals across Texas overall, according to the Department of Health Services, but in some large cities—like Houston—ICUs are reportedly at or nearing capacity. Abbott has no plans to roll back any of the state’s reopening efforts, though, saying Monday “Closing down Texas will always be the last option.” The state is currently in Phase 3 of its reopening, which has been one of the most aggressive in the nation; restaurants in Texas can operate at 75% of normal capacity. KEY BACKGROUND Several states are dealing with a similar coronavirus spike, including large states like Florida and Arizona. At his news conference Monday, Abbott noted that metrics for detecting coronavirus spread in the state, including the percentage of tests coming back positive, has been on a steady rise since Memorial Day—a holiday that featured large crowds gathering at popular vacation spots. CRITICAL QUOTE “The first obligation that we have is to make sure that people around the state really comprehend the magnitude of the challenge we’re dealing with,” Abbott said in an interview Tuesday on KBTX-TV. The governor has taken an increasingly urgent tone recently when it comes to the spike, saying Monday, “Texans can and frankly need to step up collaboratively to respond to this increase.” BIG NUMBER 120,370 — That’s the total number of coronavirus cases that have been reported in Texas throughout the pandemic. Over 24% of those were reported in the past week alone.I

😢

At that size, he’s going to end up playing with his hand on the ground.

I know. No problem. Just trying to stay “in character” with my previous TIC post. All good.

Someone said he was like Dan Hampton. I’m sure you, me, and other Bears fans like @Coach Nowlin will recognize that for the hyperbole it is. “Danimal” was a dominant player at 2 positions in the NFL. Not many can say that.

If so, he’ll be the first one ever.

In a very technically divided opinion, SCOTUS invalidated a key portion of the Trump Administration’s hastily-enacted “immigration reform,” calling the regulations “arbitrary and capricious.” This is the second significant blow to the Administration’s use of DOJ to implement what some might term a “conservative” agenda. While there were a plethora of opinions, including several concurring in part and dissenting in part, my takeaway is that all the Justices agreed that at least some facet of the regulations couldn’t pass constitutional muster. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf

In my 40+ years of high school football, I would have to say Coach Radtke is one of the more interesting figures I’ve seen. He is often his own worst enemy. But that is the product of his intense focus and his uncompromising attitude. Earlier in his career, he had lots of problems with officials. But later in his career he got away from that. There are 2 things that tell a large part of the story for me: (1) Despite his “tough love” approach, his kids love him. Talk to his former players, you’ll see, and (2) As a byproduct of #1, his teams play unbelievably hard for him. Some of my favorite games were when his Griffith team would take on Kirk Kennedy’s Lowell teams. The effort expended by both teams was really something to see. I also strongly disagree that he’s doing this just to pile up wins in pursuit of the all time record. I honestly think that sort of thing is not what drives him, doesn’t mean that much to him. He is just one of the more intensely competitive people I’ve ever met. My bottom line is that Coach Radtke has my respect. We’ve had a few run-ins over the years as a result of his intense focus and extreme competitiveness. But I never had any doubt that his only interest is the kids. That’s why he is very popular with his kids, and not so much with opposing coaches, officials, administrators, etc. He just has that singular focus ... and everything else is irrelevant. I’m looking forward to seeing what he does at Knox. I’ve seen them several times over the last couple of years, and that program has made great strides. If the kids buy into his program, I’m confident he will take them to the next level. I wish him the best of luck. And by the way, if anyone had told me 20 yrs. ago that I’d be publicly defending Coach Radtke against his critics ... well, you could have gotten pretty long odds on that. 😆

I notice you list your school affiliation as Lewis Cass. How can you live with yourself? Their nickname is the Kings. Escaping from monarchical rule is the principle on which this country was founded. It is the opposite of what this country stands for. It’s also blatantly sexist, implicitly approving a male-dominated government structure, and elitist. The use of “Kings” offends me ... and all right-thinking people. Shameful.

https://local.theonion.com/city-enters-phase-4-of-pretending-coronavirus-over-1844037065

I wonder how they’re going to report the 1859 raid against insurgent, John Brown, at Harper’s Ferry. The raid was led by Robert E. Lee, at the time a Colonel in the US Army. His 1st Lieutenant was J.E.B. Stuart.

This is a game-changer, from a supposedly “conservative” Court. Lots of ramifications. For example, what does this do to the fired teachers’ lawsuits against Roncalli, Cathedral, and the Diocese? The voting lineup in this 6-3 decision is fascinating. https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/justices-rule-lgbt-people-protected-from-job-discrimination?utm_source=breaking-news&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=2020-06-15 Justices rule LGBT people protected from job discrimination The Supreme Court of the United States ruled Monday that a landmark civil rights law protects gay, lesbian and transgender people from discrimination in employment, a resounding victory for LGBT rights from a conservative court. The court decided by a 6-3 vote that a key provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 known as Title VII that bars job discrimination because of sex, among other reasons, encompasses bias against LGBT workers. “An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court. “Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.” Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas dissented. “The Court tries to convince readers that it is merely enforcing the terms of the statute, but that is preposterous,” Alito wrote in the dissent. “Even as understood today, the concept of discrimination because of ‘sex’ is different from discrimination because of ‘sexual orientation’ or ‘gender identity.’” Kavanaugh wrote in a separate dissent that the court was rewriting the law to include gender identity and sexual orientation, a job that belongs to Congress. Still, Kavanaugh said the decision represents an “important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans.” The outcome is expected to have a big impact for the estimated 8.1 million LGBT workers across the country because most states don’t protect them from workplace discrimination. An estimated 11.3 million LGBT people live in the U.S., according to the Williams Institute at the UCLA law school. But Monday’s decision is not likely to be the court’s last word on a host of issues revolving around LGBT rights, Gorsuch noted. Lawsuits are pending over transgender athletes’ participation in school sporting events, and courts also are dealing with cases about sex-segregated bathrooms and locker rooms, a subject that the justices seemed concerned about during arguments in October. Employers who have religious objections to employing LGBT people also might be able to raise those claims in a different case, Gorsuch said. “But none of these other laws are before us; we have not had the benefit of adversarial testing about the meaning of their terms, and we do not prejudge any such question today,” he wrote. The cases were the court’s first on LGBT rights since Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement and replacement by Kavanaugh. Kennedy was a voice for gay rights and the author of the landmark ruling in 2015 that made same-sex marriage legal throughout the United States. Kavanaugh generally is regarded as more conservative. The Trump administration had changed course from the Obama administration, which supported LGBT workers in their discrimination claims under Title VII. During the Obama years, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had changed its longstanding interpretation of civil rights law to include discrimination against LGBT people. The law prohibits discrimination because of sex, but has no specific protection for sexual orientation or gender identity. In recent years, some lower courts have held that discrimination against LGBT people is a subset of sex discrimination, and thus prohibited by the federal law. Efforts by Congress to change the law have so far failed. The Supreme Court cases involved two gay men and a transgender woman who sued for employment discrimination after they lost their jobs. Aimee Stephens lost her job as a funeral director in the Detroit area after she revealed to her boss that she had struggled with gender most of her life and had, at long last, “decided to become the person that my mind already is.” Stephens told funeral home owner Thomas Rost that following a vacation, she would report to work wearing a conservative skirt suit or dress that Rost required for women who worked at his three funeral homes. Rost fired Stephens. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, Ohio, ruled that the firing constituted sex discrimination under federal law. Stephens died last month. Donna Stephens, her wife of 20 years, said in a statement that she is “grateful for this victory to honor the legacy of Aimee, and to ensure people are treated fairly regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.” The federal appeals court in New York ruled in favor of a gay skydiving instructor who claimed he was fired because of his sexual orientation. The full 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 10-3 that it was abandoning its earlier holding that Title VII didn’t cover sexual orientation because “legal doctrine evolves.” The court held that “sexual orientation discrimination is motivated, at least in part, by sex and is thus a subset of sex discrimination.” That ruling was a victory for the relatives of Donald Zarda, who was fired in 2010 from a skydiving job in Central Islip, New York, that required him to strap himself tightly to clients so they could jump in tandem from an airplane. He tried to put a woman with whom he was jumping at ease by explaining that he was gay. The school fired Zarda after the woman’s boyfriend called to complain. Zarda died in a wingsuit accident in Switzerland in 2014. In a case from Georgia, the federal appeals court in Atlanta ruled against Gerald Bostock, a gay employee of Clayton County, in the Atlanta suburbs. Bostock claimed he was fired in 2013 because he is gay. The county argues that Bostock was let go because of the results of an audit of funds he managed. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Bostock’s claim in a three-page opinion that noted the court was bound by a 1979 decision that held “discharge for homosexuality is not prohibited by Title VII.”

One of the new rules this year is that the penalty for the foul “disconcerting acts” has been reduced to 5 yds. from the previous 15. Even if you’ve been a high school football fan for many years, you may never have seen this called. But it’s a real thing, and it does happen. First, the Rule itself, 7-1-9: “No defensive player shall use disconcerting acts or words prior to the snap in an attempt to interfere with A's signals or movements.” Most are aware that the defense is not allowed to attempt to confuse the offense by calling out in a way that mimics offensive signals. But the rule involves more than that. Here’s a play from the 2020 Preseason Guide: Play — 3rd & 10 at the A 40. While A1 is calling signals DB B1, starting from a position 8 yds. behind his line of scrimmage, runs toward the line of scrimmage. He stops just short of entering the neutral zone. In response to B1’s charge, offensive lineman A (a) doesn’t move, or (b) flinches. Ruling — No foul in (a), but a 5 yd. dead ball foul on the defense in (b) if the covering official judges B1’s charge to be for the purpose of inducing a false start. If the covering official does not judge that to be B1’s intent, it is a 5 yd. dead ball foul on the offense for a false start.Noted football officiating authority George Demetriou, in the 2019 edition of Redding’s Study Guide to NFHS Football, says this about the rule: ”Team B cannot use disconcerting acts to induce a false start by Team A. The defense is allowed to shift to either side or from lineman to linebacker or vice versa. Also, linebackers or defensive backs who run toward the neutral zone attempting to time their blitz with the snap are not in violation. However, defensive players are not permitted to feint a charge to provoke Team A linemen into moving. Team B players who are stationary within one yard of their line of scrimmage are prohibited from making quick non-football related movements in an obvious attempt to draw an offensive player into committing a foul.” Love to hear some anecdotes from coaches, fans, officials, etc., about experiences with this rule.

Get used to it.

This was actually a thing!

Implications for this Fall’s Hoosiers? https://247sports.com/Article/Indiana-Hoosiers-football-Peyton-Hendershot-pleaded-guilty-to-criminal-trespass--148006037/ Indiana tight end Peyton Hendershot pleaded guilty to misdemeanor criminal trespass on Tuesday in Monroe County Court. Hendershot was arrested back in February on charges of criminal trespassing, plus misdemeanors for domestic battery, criminal mischief, and criminal conversion. The latter three misdemeanors were dismissed as part of his agreement. For the trespass offense, Hendershot was sentenced to one-year probation and is required to receive a mental health evaluation and participate in a batterer’s treatment program. According to a Bloomington Police Department news release obtained by the Bloomington Times-Herald, Hendershot went to a former girlfriend's apartment, entered the property without permission, and accused the woman of infidelity. Hendershot then took the woman's cellphone away from her and looked through calls and texts, according to the report. When she made an attempt to get the cellphone back, the 6-foot-4, 255-pound Hendershot, "grabbed her by the neck and shoved her against the wall." The woman said that Hendershot threw her phone into the kitchen and broke the screen door upon exiting the apartment. She then dialed 911 and, after the emergency call went through, police arrested Hendershot at his residence. A three-star recruit out of Tri-West High School in Lizton, Indiana, Hendershot was the 247Sports Composite's No. 1,086 overall prospect, No. 53 tight end and No. 13 player in Indiana for the 2017 class. Hendershot just completed his redshirt-sophomore campaign at Indiana in 2019, where he set the Hoosiers' single-season tight ends record with 52 receptions for 622 yards (12.0 average) and four touchdowns through all 13 games. Following Hendershot’s arrest in February, the Hoosiers issued the following statement in a university news release: “Indiana University Head Football Coach Tom Allen has suspended redshirt sophomore Peyton Hendershot immediately and indefinitely from all team activities. He will continue to evaluate the situation pending further developments.” Hendershot has since been reinstated to the IU football team in a modified way during the offseason program.