After reading the paper and watching the game here is my final post.

 

Ashland won the game and was well prepared. They played hard and phyisical and had different players step up and make plays. The Royals shouldnt worry to much about this loss though. It took 4 phantom fouls on the younger Jackson and were outshot on the free throw line 25-4. Malloy, Bush, and Arthur looked very comfortable out on the floor tonight which is a great sign that the team is maturing and will be much better come March. Man what tournament the 64th will be. It could be better than the regional tourament. Which ever 2 teams come out ot the 64th (and it could be any of the four) will have a shot at a rematch in the finals.

Its still a long time till March. No need for any team to throw in the towel.

 

Great post!

When I report what I was told first hand, it is not heresay, Frances. It would be heresay if I reported what was said by the inquiring parents themselves since I didn't hear it. I reported what I was told. If this were not permissible, no one could ever testify as to what they were told or what they actually heard directly. You know that is not the case.

 

It is not particularly my intention to take cuts at anyone. However, I will answer obvious cuts with a like response. That is how the game is played.

 

I'm not going to take time to rebut your interpretation of the facts but do feel compelled to mention that, since you are 180 or so miles away from the "subject matter" and since your information comes from one less than independent source, you may not be in a position to have much direct input.

 

Let's not let this thread digress from its purpose. Ashland got an impressive win last night. That is the story. That should be the story. Much can be "cussed and discussed" as to what the win means or how the win came about. That should be the focus.

 

Having said that, I will include a caveat. If I perceive what I consider illegitimate cuts against my personal favorites, I will respond in kind. As I have stated many times, I am not an advocate of turning the other cheek.

After reading the paper and watching the game here is my final post.

 

Ashland won the game and was well prepared. They played hard and phyisical and had different players step up and make plays. The Royals shouldnt worry to much about this loss though. It took 4 phantom fouls on the younger Jackson and were outshot on the free throw line 25-4. Malloy, Bush, and Arthur looked very comfortable out on the floor tonight which is a great sign that the team is maturing and will be much better come March. Man what tournament the 64th will be. It could be better than the regional tourament. Which ever 2 teams come out ot the 64th (and it could be any of the four) will have a shot at a rematch in the finals.

Its still a long time till March. No need for any team to throw in the towel.

I don't understand why the number of fouls or free throws for that matter have to be equal for a game to be well officiated. I would not want an official to be concerned about the number of fouls on each team and keeping them even. You are just asking for questionable whistles if that is one of their goals. Out of curiousity, how many fouls, in your opinion did the young Mr. Jackson get away with?

... I have not seen the 8th grader play basketball but I would feel safe to say the he has an advantage over those he is playing against at that level. As the kids get older, those advantages tend to disappear.

 

I agree, completely with this statement.

 

I think that the point that ZoneBuster was making was not the fact that each school has kids that are holdbacks. We all know that every school has such kids.

 

I think ZoneBuster's point was not that the kids are holdbacks, but that Scooterbob's statement that "They are very young ..." is misleading, since, chronolgically speaking, these kids are (in many cases) the same age.

 

 

Frances

Holdbacks will always be an issue and until kids are mature it matters. If you think it cannot be a competetive advantage consider this I know of a situation where two boys who attend the same school pitched against each other in a little league all star game and both were league age 12. One of those boys is in the 10th grade now and one is in the 8th grade now. I don't care why really, I trust the parents make choices that are best for the child. I have not seen the 8th grader play basketball but I would feel safe to say the he has an advantage over those he is playing against at that level. As the kids get older, those advantages tend to disappear.

 

Some kids that are held back, for whatever reason, don't play at their "grade level", they play "up". If you are holding your child back to simply dominate kids younger than your child, then you have a problem. Some boys simply physically mature later and will not be ready to go off to college at the age of 17 or even 18. Girls, on the other hand, tend to mature sooner than boys. Last time I checked it is 100% legal with the KHSAA By-laws. Apparently there is a good reason for that.

Looks like Biggs is doing a good job for Ashland. Beating Rose Hill Great.

Some kids that are held back, for whatever reason, don't play at their "grade level", they play "up". If you are holding your child back to simply dominate kids younger than your child, then you have a problem. Some boys simply physically mature later and will not be ready to go off to college at the age of 17 or even 18. Girls, on the other hand, tend to mature sooner than boys. Last time I checked it is 100% legal with the KHSAA By-laws. Apparently there is a good reason for that.

Never said it was illegal. I said that it is the parent's choice and I hope that it is in the best interest of the kid. I also said that I really don't care. The other thing that I mentioned was that it is larger competitive advantage in middle school than high school. I even got Frances to concur. Therefore no need to check the KHSAA By-laws.

I agree, completely with this statement.

 

I think that the point that ZoneBuster was making was not the fact that each school has kids that are holdbacks. We all know that every school has such kids.

 

I think ZoneBuster's point was not that the kids are holdbacks, but that Scooterbob's statement that "They are very young ..." is misleading, since, chronolgically speaking, these kids are (in many cases) the same age.

 

 

Frances

 

In high school athletics, "young" normally refers to what grade the kids are in rather than with chronological age. As SMOKEANDMIRRORS posted, it is all irrelevant if the child is eligible agewise through his/her senior year.

 

I believe that Zonebuster23 was taking a thinly veiled shot and not clarifying anything. I also think that you may be the only one who interpreted his post as merely giving information.

I'll ask the question again, amidst the talk of holdbacks and the usual Ashland-Rose Hill sniping ... is Rose Hill's recent difficulties a case of a young team hitting the wall? Can they recover and finish strong?

 

I think that's a fair question, Westsider, but I think that, without a doubt, as BogeyMan said, they are simply a young team that has run into a couple of well prepared teams that outplayed them on that given night.

 

Also, like BogeyMan, I believe that Rose Hill is far from being "dead". They will (like several teams in the 16th) be a very tough out when the tournaments begin.

 

 

Frances

I have agreed with scooterbob from the start. Rose Hill is at least a year away. Elliott should win next year, if not this year.

 

Ashland by at least 7 and it could get ugly.

 

 

I'll stick with my pre-season picks:

 

1. Russell

2. Elliott

2. Ashland

 

 

Since the Old Duckster couldn't get any accolades from even Frances on this bold prediction, I'll pat myself on the back.

 

My apologies, Duck. You were also quite the soothsayer in your pregame prediction. You know that all of the girls at the Ladies' Auxiliary can't help clucking about you, but I was remiss in not giving you your due.

 

 

Frances

Were the KOB teams that RH beat a bit overrated & now we are seeing the true RH team now that they are playing a little better teams? Raceland, Ashland

After reading the paper and watching the game here is my final post.

 

Ashland won the game and was well prepared. They played hard and phyisical and had different players step up and make plays. The Royals shouldnt worry to much about this loss though. It took 4 phantom fouls on the younger Jackson and were outshot on the free throw line 25-4. Malloy, Bush, and Arthur looked very comfortable out on the floor tonight which is a great sign that the team is maturing and will be much better come March. Man what tournament the 64th will be. It could be better than the regional tourament. Which ever 2 teams come out ot the 64th (and it could be any of the four) will have a shot at a rematch in the finals.

Its still a long time till March. No need for any team to throw in the towel.

 

I agree with your conclusion (that the two teams coming out of the 64th will do well at the Regional Tournament, and that none of them should be throwing in the towel.

 

And since this will be your last post in this thread, let me say once again, how nice it is to see that NO ONE from Rose Hill is blaming the referees. :thumb:

 

 

Frances

I will agree that it wasn't a bad called game but I will not agree that Coldiron is one of the Regions best.

 

Congratulations to Ashland. Maturity paid off in the end.

 

I agree with you know where close to the best.

I agree with your conclusion (that the two teams coming out of the 64th will do well at the Regional Tournament, and that none of them should be throwing in the towel.

 

And since this will be your last post in this thread, let me say once again, how nice it is to see that NO ONE from Rose Hill is blaming the referees. :thumb:

 

 

Frances

 

I am very pleased that there were no complaints about officiating, as well.

When I report what I was told first hand, it is not heresay, Frances. It would be heresay if I reported what was said by the inquiring parents themselves since I didn't hear it. I reported what I was told. If this were not permissible, no one could ever testify as to what they were told or what they actually heard directly. You know that is not the case. [/Quote] From Webster's Online Dictionary:

hearsay evidence

One entry found for hearsay evidence.

Main Entry: hearsay evidence

Function: noun

: evidence based not on a witness's personal knowledge but on another's statement not made under oath

 

Using the textbook definition of "Hearsay Evidence", that is exactly what you have reported, and it is exactly what you rail against at every opportunity.

 

 

...It is not particularly my intention to take cuts at anyone. [/Quote] With all due respect, I think that is exactly your intention. I base this on the fact that, time after time, you take unprovoked shots at people. You take great pride in dealing in the truth (as you see it), and I respect you for that. In this instance, the truth is that you have a VERY strong track record of posting intentionally provoking statements. Denial is unbecoming of you.

 

However, I will answer obvious cuts with a like response. That is how the game is played. [/Quote] ... and I have no disagreement with that.

 

 

I'm not going to take time to rebut your interpretation of the facts but do feel compelled to mention that, since you are 180 or so miles away from the "subject matter" and since your information comes from one less than independent source, you may not be in a position to have much direct input.[/Quote] I'll put my hearsay evidence up against your hearsay evidence any day.

 

 

Let's not let this thread digress from its purpose. Ashland got an impressive win last night. That is the story. That should be the story. Much can be "cussed and discussed" as to what the win means or how the win came about. That should be the focus. [/Quote] Agreed.

 

 

Having said that, I will include a caveat. If I perceive what I consider illegitimate cuts against my personal favorites, I will respond in kind. As I have stated many times, I am not an advocate of turning the other cheek.

As you will. Of course, you will understand when I do the same.

 

 

Frances