Punttheball

2 hours ago, MarshallCounty said:

Did they announce that?

If you aren’t leaving, what is there to announce?

Rochester isn’t leaving the TRC.

10 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Why not?  Sounds like socioeconomic "reasons".

 

Nah!! It is just a case of Southwood and Northfield want to keep their identity and nobody likes Wabash.

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

Why not?  

Southwood and Northfield don't want to merge! Heck they already bought land to do it and then voted it down.  And nobody wants to merge with Wabash! This just isn't happening.  

29 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

A Wabash County High School, combing the city of Wabash, Southwood, and part of the Northfield school district.  North Manchester takes the other part of the Northfield school district.

 

Not in the next 20 years.

14 hours ago, Yuccaguy said:

Whatcha gonna do when Northfield and Southwood ultimately HAVE to merge?  Of course some numbers will go elsewhere, but the majority would be within the same building.....and it wouldn't be called "Northwood"....  perhaps...Southfield? 

The merge was voted down again.  I'm not sure what is going to happen there.  If they ever happened to get this merge done, I see a team like Lewis Cass being an option to jump to the TRC.  

Does anyone know if this event is still on?  There was an email that went out, but I believe they do not have a coach right now.  Any information would help.

So I called the Sheraton to make a reservation for the clinic.  The hotel acts like they don't even know there is a clinic going on that weekend.  No rooms available.  I'm ok with that.  But does the IFCA no longer have a block of rooms that can be reserved for the clinic? The agenda was just released recently and the rooms are all gone.  Maybe there is another event scheduled and rooms are taken.  

14 hours ago, Coach Nowlin said:

As a coach, you have a responsibility to support your student athletes if you as a coach feel that you have a player who is deserving for an opportunity to represent their respective regions. 

I can only speak for Region 4, you have no shot to make the team if you nominate a player and then no show the meeting.   Even if you send an assistant, that will be received well.   

Another PET PEEVE, SHOW UP to meetings, even when you do NOT have a kid you want to nominate, thats the responsibility of the IFCA member representing the school you work for.  Just don't show up when you think you have a kid worthy.   cringe worthy stuff there imo 

Exactly coach! I know there were a couple schools that had coaches at the National Wing-t clinic this year and could not attend as head coaches, but made sure they had representation as a staff and school.  

You make a great point about representing even if you have not nominated a player.  

You should get Mike Johnson to speak. It would give you a wing-t representation.  Brett Colby would be awesome also for a double wing rep.  It is a great lineup either way.  Thanks coach.

17 hours ago, US31 said:

What about this question....

Should a school nominate a player they KNOW has no intention of playing in the N/S All-Star game...even if selected? 

In other words, if Johnny Walker is graduating early and going to a big Power 5 school like Ol'Tex, UCC, or State University...who will not allow him to play in the game...should a coaching staff nominate him?

I know that Region 4 honors those guys that have accepted Div. 1 offers and will not play in the game.  They do not make a position on the team generally.  

It was emphasized this past nomination period that no kid should be put up for the Region All-Star team that was not willing to play in the game.  So, is it really the best representation of talent for the region?  There are players that make the region team that are on 1-9, 2-8, 0-10 teams.  There are teams that get no representation because kids cannot play in the North/South Game for whatever reason.  But the chances of getting selected to that game are low anyway.  So the IFCA elects to recognize players at the region level that may have no business playing in the game.  This is the dilemma coaches face, and they must answer questions brought up by their parents and stakeholders about why their school has no representation.  It is tough.

17 hours ago, temptation said:

The man can coach.  This will be fun to follow.

We will find out for sure.  He struggled with the exception of a couple years at North Central.  He had a losing record there and a couple 1 win seasons if I recall correctly.  

On 1/13/2023 at 2:48 PM, Boilernation said:

I don't know what the talent level currently is; however, demographics have changed drastically since the Radtke glory days and many have stated as the demographics shifted the community began to lose interest in football. This chart is from the 2019-2020 school year. I would be willing to wager it was drastically different 15 years ago. This is really shocking news to me. GREAT for Griffith though. 

 

In 1994, there was a Hispanic/Latino presence on the team.  I specifically remember Tony Gonzalez playing D tackle.  I think the Andreisen(sp?) kid was a freshmen.  He went on to be a part of the State team in 1997.  I cannot speak to the numbers in the school at the time, but I am not sure Race/Ethnicity is a problem.  The free and reduced number is everywhere, so not sure that can be the problem either.  Maybe a combination of things.

9 minutes ago, Coach Clements said:

Have you received any information for the teams camps coming up this summer? 

No, but from past experience, I am guessing the dates will be June 12-15 and June 19-22.  They do not always get these dates out very early.  It does make it difficult to plan in the summer.

Who is going the first week and who is going the second week?

11 minutes ago, Bobref said:

What is and is not important to crews is dictated by our Manual and the guidance of our boss. It’s not my call, or any crew’s call. And I have a hard time believing that a slot receiver who is supposed to be in the backfield, but is 6 inches too close to his line of scrimmage, affects the defensive coverage and assignments at all. 

The point is...if that slot receiver declares as being on the line of scrimmage and is covered.  This makes him ineligible..if he is allowed to go out for a pass, it certainly affects coverages and assignments.  

If there is a flexed TE and a receiver flanking him on his outside that declares on as does the TE, our defensive backfield would communicate to each other that the TE is dead.  We would ignore him if he went out for a pass.  We would expect the crew to recognize that also, but it gets by many officials.  

It is probably not a great place to talk about this or these situations because there are so many scenarios that could happen.  I'm not sure that I am expressing myself well enough in the post.  

6 hours ago, JustRules said:

You are bringing up two different situations and combining them into one. The general philosophy is "put them where they are supposed to be" if it's close and you can prevent a foul. If your options are to put the receiver as a back, but it results in an illegal formation (5 in the backfield) or put him on and it covers the TE (meaning you have an ineligible lineman on the other side or 8 on the LOS), you will put him on and then monitor the TE for going downfield. Teams that intentionally cover a TE are trying to pull coverage or go heavy on one side. Usually when you give the wideout the benefit of the doubt and rule him off, he's the 4th back.

You are correct. I was bringing up two different situations.  It was more of a reply directly to Bobref because of the nitpicking comment as if neither situation was something of importance to the crews anymore.  

Each instance though is happening more and more without recognition from sideline refs.  Covered up TEs are going out for passes more and more.  END OF SITUATION!  And 5 men in the backfield is going uncalled more and more.  END OF SITUATION.  In my opinion, not emphasizing these calls compromises the defenses more than it seems to appear to those in the refereeing world.  

Are these both situations in which crews are being told not to nitpick about?  Or is one less important to crews than the other?  Because they are both important to coaches.

26 minutes ago, Bobref said:

I’m talking about the situation where, for example, the widest receiver is on the line, and the slot receiver on that side is off … except he’s not far enough behind the wide receiver to be in the backfield. When he goes downfield on a pass, instead of flagging him for being an ineligible downfield, we’ll talk to him after the play and tell him either to move up a step or back a step. It’s called preventive officiating. And it’s done that way at every level.

I can appreciate that.  If a slot receiver has put his arm back and is still a questionable covered receiver, I am ok with.  The defense can identify him as an eligible receiver because of his declaration. What I am referring to is covering a TE up and the TE going down field for a pass.  There are teams that do this repeatedly and it is very difficult to get it recognized and called.  It can even be brought up in the pregame meeting with the officials.  

Bob, is 5 in the backfield treated the same?  I have seen repeated plays where the SE declares he is off and four other players are clearly off the line and it is not called or caught by the officials.  

37 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

 

 

I think we are different pages.  

1 minute ago, Impartial_Observer said:

As has been pointed out earlier in the thread, that’s the way it’s called in NFL and NCAA. 

What are you talking about?  It was not pointed out earlier in the thread that it is called that way in the NFL and NCAA.

16 hours ago, Bobref said:

I can see where you would think that. Lining up on vs. off the line receivers is something that our officials are told not to nitpick. Ordinarily, this is handled as a “talk-to” unless the violations are egregious or repeated.

Bob pointed out that "our officials are told not to nitpick".  I assume since the thread is about high school football, he is referring to high school refs when he says "our".

The rules for covered and uncovered are a different animal in the NFL.  Not apples to apples.

20 minutes ago, Bobref said:

Just telling you the way it is. Don’t shoot the messenger.

I get it because I know who your boss is.  But it is a big deal to coaches.  

14 hours ago, Bobref said:

I can see where you would think that. Lining up on vs. off the line receivers is something that our officials are told not to nitpick. Ordinarily, this is handled as a “talk-to” unless the violations are egregious or repeated.

Honestly, this is a terrible answer.  Defensive coordinators set coverages and defenses based on formations and receivers.  It is important to identify ineligible receivers as a defense.  This is why a covered TE is allowed to go down field and catch passes.  Shouldn't 5 men in the backfield be important?  It is terrible on so many levels.  You are allowing the possibility of 6 eligible receivers!  I'm guessing that if you are not "nitpicking" on vs. off then you don't care if teams have 5 ineligible numbers on the field either? Officials are more worried about the sidelines, if they are being observed, reading the scripted card before the game, if the balls have enough air in them, are they the correct balls, then applying simple on the field basic rules!

I already know your reply will be something in line with not enough eyes, or we do what Mr. Faulkens says, or go to the IFCA, or there is already a shortage of officials "and guys like you are why!"

This is bad to me.

1 hour ago, Trojanmp52 said:

Here is my four cents on a few changes I would like to see

1. On field goals attempts if the kicking team misses the ball is spotted at the line of scrimmage not the 20.  
 

2 on kickoffs the receiving team can call a fair change if they are inside the 20 and ball will be spotted at the 20.

3 on a first down a more consistent job between crews on how fast they start the game clock.  I have seen some where it is almost the like they say first down then start the clock and others that what till the down markers are set.

1 hour ago, Impartial_Observer said:

1) Whis got the spot? R need to write that down or are we going to hire another chain crew member? Philosophically this conflicts with a lot of stuff. 
2) Why should K be penalized for not quite being good enough to get the ball to the EZ?

3) The game clock starts when the box is set, I’m not understanding the lack of consistency?

1. Trojanmp52 has a good point. It is done at every other level.  It cannot be that hard.

2. Don't see it as a priority.

3. Impartial-the inconsistency is in the statement Trajanmp52 made.  Some take the time to wait on the chains, and others do not.  That sounds inconsistent to me.

I would like to see covered up TE's and receivers recognized better by crews, and 5 men in the backfield.  I think that these are two things that are missed in games on a consistent basis.

40 minutes ago, npcougar15 said:

I totally understand his family is moving or a change of address is happening for the young man; not disputing that. Not disputing that this is 100% in compliance with the IHSAA and I'm not insinuating anything in the slightest happened behind closed doors here.

But words matter; and the term "transfer" implies no changing of physical address. It also implies changing schools for athletic purposes and maybe some recruiting was involved. Again not saying that this is what happened here in the slightest. And when you go on twitter and announce you are "transferring" and refer a schools football team it can be misinterpreted by some. "I'm moving", "move-in", "excited to be in the _______ community" or hell not saying anything at all (like we did for the first 100 years of high school athletics) would be more appropriate terms at the high school level. 

I'm sure it is a trickle down from colleges.  I doubt the kids know anyone cares about how it is worded.  But I'm pretty sure transfer by definition means to move from one place to another.  

On 12/9/2022 at 6:54 PM, npcougar15 said:

I know Indiana has open enrollment and I doubt a kid would drive from Indianapolis to Nappanee every day just for football purposes (which doesn't make sense anyways for someone with an SEC offer already). But isn't it a little odd for a high school student to announce they are "transferring". I just find that verbiage a little off putting at the high school level. 

His family is either moving or there has been a family situation that has changed.  Either way, the term transferring is correct.  What other term would you suggest?