Bobref

The Jesuits have been doing things their way for almost 500 years now. They’re certainly not going to change over this piddling dust up.

Whether to ask the offense, whether to say anything to the defense, if so, what to say, varies by crew. Thus, the need to standardize how we’re going to handle the outcome. The main thing to remember is that the offense is allowed to deceive the defense by formation. But they are not allowed to deceive the defense by actively misrepresenting their intentions in this way. So, if the offense says or does anything that represents to the defense and the officials that they are going to take a knee, they’re not going to be allowed to do anything else.

All good, reasonable approaches. Here’s the official IHSAA procedure. If the offense announces - to the officials or anyone else - that they’re taking a knee, the defense is entitled to rely on that. If after communicating that, the offense runs an actual play, the Referee is to immediately blow the play dead. He then administers the situation as an inadvertent whistle, which will result in a replay. Prior to the replay, the Referee is to instruct the coach of the offensive team that if this is repeated, it will be charged as an unsportsmanlike conduct foul against the head coach, and ang score or gain on the play will be nullified. Now, if the offense doesn’t say anything, then regardless of the formation they line up in, it’s play football.

If the coach of the offended team doesn’t elect to have it started on the snap... At our meeting Saturday, there were plenty of people who argued for just this outcome. But, in the end, that point of view did not carry the day.

https://babylonbee.com/news/cdc-people-dirt-clintons-843-greater-risk-suicide CDC: People With Dirt On Clintons Have 843% Greater Risk Of Suicide November 9th, 2017 ATLANTA, GA – According to a report from the Centers for Disease Control released on Thursday, people with inside, compromising knowledge of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s financial and political dealings are 843% more likely to commit suicide. “We’ve never seen a single risk factor cause a spike of this magnitude,” a CDC spokesperson told reporters. “Interestingly, in spite of their increased suicide risk, people with dirt on the Clintons rarely show any warning signs of suicide, and they never leave a suicide note.” Remarking about how abnormal it is, the spokesman again stressed the significance of the data. “Therefore, we advise any American with detrimental information about Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, or the Clinton Foundation to forget about it as quickly as possible to avoid a greatly increased probability of taking your own life,” he cautioned. “And—I swear—that’s all we know.”

Here’s a play that you see every once in a while, always controversial. There is now an approved IHSAA ruling on this play. All crews are required to handle this play as directed in the official interpretation. First, the play. With time running down in the 4th period, Team A leads 21-7, and has the ball on the B 14 yd. line. After a timeout the QB of A comes to the huddle and tells the Referee “we’re taking a knee.” The offense then lines up in “Victory” formation. At the snap, the QB fakes taking a knee and lofts a TD pass to A9 in the corner of the end zone. What would you do, if anything? The approved interpretation will follow after we have a few answers.

The definition of a horse collar tackle is when the tackler “Grab the inside back or side collar, or the name plate area (directly below the back collar), of either the shoulder pads or the jersey of the runner and subsequently pull (backward or sideward) that opponent to the ground.” So, there are 3 elements to the foul: The tackler grabs the horse collar area. The tackler pulls sideways or backwards. The tackler takes the runner to the ground using the horse collar. If any one of these 3 elements is missing, it’s not a horse collar tackle.

I would like to be a fly on the wall when you tried.

2nd and 8 at the B 37-yard line. A is in an illegal formation at the snap, A1 passes and B27 interferes with A87, an B23 intercepts the pass. During the return of the interception B34 blocks A52 in the back. B23 runs out of bounds at the B 45-yard line where A63 hits him late. What do you have as a result? All the live ball fouls offset, and we go back to the previous spot to replay the down. But then enforce the 15 yd. dead ball foul against A for the late hit. So, it’a A’s ball, 2nd and 23 at the A 48. 4th and 5 from A's 35 YL. A1 punts and the kick in flight hits B68's helmet at the LOS. It goes past the NZ where it is muffed by B21 and rolls back to A's 30, where B12 picks it up and throws incomplete to A89 at A's 45. (Assuming for the sake of argument there are no ineligible A players down field on the pass) Who's ball is it and what is the down and distance? The touching of B68 is ignored since it occurred in the neutral zone. When B21 muffs the kick beyond the neutral zone, the continuity of downs is broken, meaning that whoever is in possession at the end of the down is going to have the ball and a fresh series. You said B12 threw the pass, but I think you meant A12, since he threw it to A89. If that is the case, then the forward pass is legal and incomplete. A’s ball, 1st and 10 at the previous spot, the A35. Game clock starts on the snap.

None that I’ve ever heard.

👍

And the GID would be much the poorer for it.

Penn is also one of the very few schools that flatly refuses to send their game film to the IFOA, so that the crew can review it and engage in self critical analysis. A real puzzler.

The problem is that none of these correlations have any predictive value. The number of “false positives” makes it impossible to use these statistics in any really meaningful way.

You’re correct. The formation would be legal ... but unusual.

Strictly speaking, he can play any position on the field, depending on other circumstances. But numbers 90-99 do satisfy one of the criteria for being eligible to legally receive a forward pass. Now, if you want to use him as an interior lineman, remember you still have to have 5 players on the OL numbered 50-79 in most circumstances.

I see your logic ... but no, this would not pass current constitutional tests.

Not all colleges have this problem. 91% of Notre Dame freshmen earn a bachelor’s degree in 4 years. At 6 years, it’s almost 96%.

First, tell me where to send the bill. 🤑 Seriously, the risk of liability for an Internet forum that merely provides a place for people to express opinions, without endorsing them, is infinitesimal. However, that’s the risk of actually being found liable. The risk of being sued is somewhat greater. A site like this which barely scrapes by financially would be ruined by the cost of simply defending a meritless lawsuit. That’s what insurance is for.

Well, do you or don’t you have an opinion you wish to share?

This begs the question whether it is a wise policy for local government to enact.

It may have been “legitimate,” in the sense it was sincere. But I assumed it was sarcastic, given the obviousness of the answer — which was implicit in my previous post. In any event, the answer is “no.”

If you don’t see the difference between a private employer deciding that its employees, in its specific business, are productive enough to warrant an increase in wages vs. government mandating an across the board wage increase in all employers in all types of businesses, regardless of productivity or profit margin, there’s really no hope for you.

The evidence suggests otherwise.

It’s not nice to fool with Mother Nature. Or, in this case, market forces.