13 hours ago, theguru said:

Someone just told me that Commissioner Tackett has taken a stance on this play.

Anyone?

Is this a joke? Even if he took a stance, without board approval it would not mean a thing. Would this be his first stance ever? A rule is a rule and this one is very clear.

15 minutes ago, Country said:

Is this a joke? Even if he took a stance, without board approval it would not mean a thing. Would this be his first stance ever? A rule is a rule and this one is very clear.

Especially in a regular-season game, he won't/couldn't do anything. But he can make it clear to officials and those involved whether or not a play was legal and should have been allowed.

2 hours ago, CAT DIESEL POWER said:

Did that someone say what his stance was? 

That is what I am trying to find out.  Anyone?

1 hour ago, Country said:

Is this a joke? Even if he took a stance, without board approval it would not mean a thing. Would this be his first stance ever? A rule is a rule and this one is very clear.

1 hour ago, Pi said:

Especially in a regular-season game, he won't/couldn't do anything. But he can make it clear to officials and those involved whether or not a play was legal and should have been allowed.

It is not a joke @Country and like @Pi said he could give his expert opinion.

Anyone?

15 hours ago, theguru said:

Someone just told me that Commissioner Tackett has taken a stance on this play.

Anyone?

There were 3 different penalties on the fake punt that weren't called. I guess nothing now can be done. I don't want to turn this into a ref bashing deal either, but missing 3 calls on 1 play seems a bit excessive.  

1. Illegal participation

2. Illegal formation with 5 in the backfield

3. Ineligible player down field based on the formation. 

This play didn't determine the outcome overall, it just sealed the deal. 

 

Tackett or someone in the KHSAA would have to take a stance if let's say someone sent it to the KHSAA offices as a missed call by the officials or if someone wanted a rules clarification.  This would be my strong hunch that it was sent to them.

14 minutes ago, BLUEHOUND said:

There were 3 different penalties on the fake punt that weren't called. I guess nothing now can be done. I don't want to turn this into a ref bashing deal either, but missing 3 calls on 1 play seems a bit excessive.  

1. Illegal participation

2. Illegal formation with 5 in the backfield

3. Ineligible player down field based on the formation. 

This play didn't determine the outcome overall, it just sealed the deal. 

 

1. #14 checked in past the numbers so I'm not sure where the illegal participation would've been. 

2. Five OL on the ball, #5 on the ball, #14 on the ball. Seven on the line. 

2 hours ago, DearToday said:

1. #14 checked in past the numbers so I'm not sure where the illegal participation would've been. 

2. Five OL on the ball, #5 on the ball, #14 on the ball. Seven on the line. 

I'm just the messenger. Heard it from a respected official that has seen the footage of the play. 

On 9/16/2025 at 10:22 AM, Country said:

Boyle notified the refs what they were doing before the play. It was totally legal and as was mentioned earlier been used forever. Fans can't change the rules just because their team is not prepared. If Highlands had covered the receiver, Boyle would have called a timeout and then punted.

Coaches are usually asked in the pregame conference if they are going to be doing anything unusual that they should be aware of happening. Never heard a coach tell an official that at any other time.

56 minutes ago, BLUEHOUND said:

I'm just the messenger. Heard it from a respected official that has seen the footage of the play. 

Well don't share untrue news. There's footage of the play floating around by now where you can go and look at it. 

3 hours ago, BLUEHOUND said:

There were 3 different penalties on the fake punt that weren't called. I guess nothing now can be done. I don't want to turn this into a ref bashing deal either, but missing 3 calls on 1 play seems a bit excessive.  

1. Illegal participation

2. Illegal formation with 5 in the backfield

3. Ineligible player down field based on the formation. 

This play didn't determine the outcome overall, it just sealed the deal. 

 

I’ll assume you’re being honest. The player never left the field then came back on after the ready for play. Not illegal participation. 

Okay there seems to be some dispute on legal versus illegal depending on what part of the state you come from.  Been told that NKY officials discussed at a recent meeting and said play was not legal.  At end of the day, it did not impact the final result.  Apparently many can learn from this situation and it may be addressed differently down the road.

26 minutes ago, Breds82 said:

I’ll assume you’re being honest. The player never left the field then came back on after the ready for play. Not illegal participation. 

The rule doesn’t state that he has to leave the field. Just that illegal participation is:

To use a player, replaced player, substitute, coach, athletic trainer or other attendant in a substitution or pretended substitution to deceive opponents at or immediately before the snap or free kick.

 

27 minutes ago, Jack of all Trades said:

Okay there seems to be some dispute on legal versus illegal depending on what part of the state you come from.  Been told that NKY officials discussed at a recent meeting and said play was not legal.  At end of the day, it did not impact the final result.  Apparently many can learn from this situation and it may be addressed differently down the road.

I agree with you. 

4 hours ago, DearToday said:

1. #14 checked in past the numbers so I'm not sure where the illegal participation would've been. 

2. Five OL on the ball, #5 on the ball, #14 on the ball. Seven on the line. 

14 is not on the ball if you compare the hudl shot to the Facebook video. The line of scrimmage is the 37. He's on the 36.