Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

2A State Championship: Fort Wayne Bishop Luers vs. Western Boone Stars


Recommended Posts

Congrats to Webo and great season to Luers! Special congrats to Bishop Luers #19 for making history this year! This extended family member and the rest of us in the IN/OH area from Allen County & Adams County IN and Van Wert County & Mercer County OH are very proud!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, TheStatGuy said:

Haha. Maybe pick off some snider outcasts and dwenger outcasts and hey maybe go over to ohio and get yourself a RB. 

Don't worry, they have a damn good one. If he wasn't hurt, the last few pages of this thread probably look much different.

Hats off to Webo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, 07_statechamp54 said:

Very sad for these Luers kids to have a game be decided that way. I thought when they got the ball back with 1:55 that they shouldn’t of been conservative. Stay true to who you are and drive the ball downfield but hey. Now it’s on to next year, your goal remains the same. This loss should fuel you to be better. 
 

This is a great thing for everyone on this thread/forum who hates parochial and private schools. It’s like Christmas come a few weeks early! I’m not sure why there is so much hate, but enjoy basking in it. Much respect to Webo. Hard fought game.

Even the Lord couldn’t grant them a Hail Mary...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, miner_35 said:

 

You two have no clue. Receiver was being pushed out of bounds by defender. Interference everytime. Ignorance like this makes me laugh

Anyone who disagreed with that pass interference call must have not watched the game as it was clearly pi.... That said it is sad there had to be a loser, 2 great teams playing a great game.  M

Edited by Crusty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, TheStatGuy said:

Haha. Maybe pick off some snider outcasts and dwenger outcasts and hey maybe go over to ohio and get yourself a RB. 

There’s that good ole deranged, unhinged P/P hate that so many on this website harbor within themselves. Why the inferiority complex towards P/Ps?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll never understand why a coaching staff elects to play conservative at the end when playing conservative isn't what got them all their points in the first place. In the end, it was the conservative play calling when Luers last had the ball and the numerous penalties on the Knights in the 4th quarter.............none bigger than the penalty on the fair catch. 

Anyway, congrats to Indy area teams. Possibly the first of six champions crowned from the area.

On another note. Don't feel sorry for Luers. They will steamroll 2a next year. No one will stop them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, fenderbender said:

Just said only 3rd team to three peat.  Is that right?   Or is that in 2A?

Sheridan and LCC both appeared four years in a row ... 2005-2008 and 2009-2012 respectively.  Sheridan took blue rings in the first three apperances in that block while LCC took four blue rings.  Cathedral five-peated from 2010-2014 and did it across two classes ... 4A and 5A.

I believe though that WeBo might be the only team to win three consecutive blue rings in the the same class in the SF era.  Pioneer made three consecutive trips to LOS in SF from 2016-2018, but like WeBo, ended up split cycle to miss moving up.  Also Pioneer only picked up two blue rings in those three consecutive visits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, temptation said:

Great win for public education.

Oh the irony. 

Three state championships in a row and a win over a PP ... like the PP part even matters.  Let's just call it what it is ... WeBo's done a great job of making things happen when they get to LOS regardless of who's on the other side of the 50 when the coin is flipped.  Congrats to the kids and their coaches and the school for not buying into the hype and just playing the game!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Warren Central from 2003-06. Luers from 09-12.

5 minutes ago, foxbat said:

Sheridan and LCC both appeared four years in a row ... 2005-2008 and 2009-2012 respectively.  Sheridan took blue rings in the first three apperances in that block while LCC took four blue rings.  Cathedral five-peated from 2010-2014 and did it across two classes ... 4A and 5A.

I believe though that WeBo might be the only team to win three consecutive blue rings in the the same class in the SF era.  Pioneer made three consecutive trips to LOS in SF from 2016-2018, but like WeBo, ended up split cycle to miss moving up.  Also Pioneer only picked up two blue rings in those three consecutive visits.

Warren from 2003-06. Luers from 2009-12 but I think you’re right about them being the first in the SF era to 3peat.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not see the play in question on the replay, only live, and don't know whether or why the receiver stepped out of bounds. But this is the rule:

  • A receiver who was eligible at the start of a play remains eligible throughout the down, no matter what.
  • If the receiver steps out of bounds as a result of contact with the defender, no matter how slight, and returns to the field of play at the earliest opportunity, there's no foul.
  • If the receiver stepped out of bounds on his own and returns to the field of play, it is a foul at the spot he returns. The foul is for illegal participation, a 15 yd. live ball penalty which, in this particular case since it occurred during a pass play, would be enforced from the previous spot and the down replayed.
  • Since the DPI and the illegal participation are both live ball fouls, they offset and the down is replayed at the previous spot.

From what I saw, the DPI was a good call. The other 6 observers I'm watching the game from the pressbox with agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wvigo13 said:

What were you watching? I watched it 5 times. Receiver was IN BOUNDS until the defender makes contact and pushes him out. 

I ran this back and took this photo a split second before the receiver goes out of bounds. He did NOT run out prior to contact. As you can see here, the defender was in contact with the receiver. It was the correct call.

Game Pic.jpeg

Edited by WestfieldRocks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bobref said:

I did not see the play in question on the replay, only live, and don't know whether or why the receiver stepped out of bounds. But this is the rule:

  • A receiver who was eligible at the start of a play remains eligible throughout the down, no matter what.
  • If the receiver steps out of bounds as a result of contact with the defender, no matter how slight, and returns to the field of play at the earliest opportunity, there's no foul.
  • If the receiver stepped out of bounds on his own and returns to the field of play, it is a foul at the spot he returns. The foul is for illegal participation, a 15 yd. live ball penalty which, in this particular case since it occurred during a pass play, would be enforced from the previous spot and the down replayed.
  • Since the DPI and the illegal participation are both live ball fouls, they offset and the down is replayed at the previous spot.

From what I saw, the DPI was a good call. The other 6 observers I'm watching the game from the pressbox with agree.

And you are not biased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bobref said:

I did not see the play in question on the replay, only live, and don't know whether or why the receiver stepped out of bounds. But this is the rule:

  • A receiver who was eligible at the start of a play remains eligible throughout the down, no matter what.
  • If the receiver steps out of bounds as a result of contact with the defender, no matter how slight, and returns to the field of play at the earliest opportunity, there's no foul.
  • If the receiver stepped out of bounds on his own and returns to the field of play, it is a foul at the spot he returns. The foul is for illegal participation, a 15 yd. live ball penalty which, in this particular case since it occurred during a pass play, would be enforced from the previous spot and the down replayed.
  • Since the DPI and the illegal participation are both live ball fouls, they offset and the down is replayed at the previous spot.

From what I saw, the DPI was a good call. The other 6 observers I'm watching the game from the pressbox with agree.

So in this case the penalties should have offset and webo shouldn’t have gotten the 15 yards based on the rule? Or I could be misinterpreting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, miner_35 said:

This is incorrect and he is not an ineligible receiver. He becomes an illegal participant if he catches the ball or make a block I do believe. Had been that way since I became an official.

Both of those things are illegal participation ... but so are many others. The rulebook definition is "any act or action by a player or nonplayer than has an influence on play." Simply running a pass pattern on the opposite side of the field from the play is participation, since it occupies a defender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, BTF said:

I'll never understand why a coaching staff elects to play conservative at the end when playing conservative isn't what got them all their points in the first place. In the end, it was the conservative play calling when Luers last had the ball and the numerous penalties on the Knights in the 4th quarter.............none bigger than the penalty on the fair catch. 

Anyway, congrats to Indy area teams. Possibly the first of six champions crowned from the area.

On another note. Don't feel sorry for Luers. They will steamroll 2a next year. No one will stop them. 

Webo is a 100% rural school. Not Indy nor a doughnut county.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 07_statechamp54 said:

So in this case the penalties should have offset and webo shouldn’t have gotten the 15 yards based on the rule? Or I could be misinterpreting it.

As I said, I don't know if the receiver stepped out, or if he did, why he did. But, if the receiver voluntarily stepped out and returned, then the result of the play should have been a double foul, i.e., live ball fouls by both teams that offset, and the down is replayed at the previous spot.

2 minutes ago, jakone said:

And you are not biased.

What bias? I said I didn't see that part of the play. I'm not saying what should have happened. I'm just telling you what the rules say. Or are you not interested in that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, WestfieldRocks said:

I ran this back and took this photo a split second before the receiver goes out of bounds. He did NOT run out prior to contact. As you can see here, the defender was in contact with the receiver. It was the correct call.

Game Pic.jpeg

I didn't say he was out of bounds prior to contact. I said he was IN BOUNDS until the defender pushed him out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bobref said:

As I said, I don't know if the receiver stepped out, or if he did, why he did. But, if the receiver voluntarily stepped out and returned, then the result of the play should have been a double foul, i.e., live ball fouls by both teams that offset, and the down is replayed at the previous spot.

Ok understood. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bobref said:

As I said, I don't know if the receiver stepped out, or if he did, why he did. But, if the receiver voluntarily stepped out and returned, then the result of the play should have been a double foul, i.e., live ball fouls by both teams that offset, and the down is replayed at the previous spot.

What bias? I said I didn't see that part of the play. I'm not saying what should have happened. I'm just telling you what the rules say. Or are you not interested in that?

Can you tell me where the refs in this game are from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Staxawax said:

Webo is a 100% rural school. Not Indy nor a doughnut county.

However, growing rapidly, due to many people moving into the Whitestown area, where Amazon is now a fixture, along with other businesses that have located there in recent years.

Edited by WestfieldRocks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another question I have @Bobref is on the rule on fair catch. In high school do you have to give the defense a window of time to get away from the receiver? Seemed like potentially the last punt fair catch was called a little late and the contact was simply off of unstoppable momentum and not anything malicious. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, WestfieldRocks said:

I ran this back and took this photo a split second before the receiver goes out of bounds. He did NOT run out prior to contact. As you can see here, the defender was in contact with the receiver. It was the correct call.

Game Pic.jpeg

Let me tell you, that is a terrific hustle play by the Head Linesman. That ball was thrown a long way downfield. His mechanic is to hold the line of scrimmage until the receiver on his side gets 10 yds. downfield. Then he drops off the line and moves to the ball when it is in flight. That's a terrific piece of coverage right there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...