This is starting to feel like the scene in Major League where they're arguing the ball was "too high."  

3 hours ago, Jack of all Trades said:

 At end of the day, it did not impact the final result.  

I really don’t know how you come to that conclusion.  The successful execution of this gutsy call kept a premier punt returner from having a chance.  Kept a pretty high powered offense (that had been mostly bottled-up throughout the game) from initiating their last minute offense.  If the play was illegal the non-call was a huge mistake.  If the play was legal it was gutsy, well executed and rang the death knell on the Birds.

43 minutes ago, Oldercoach said:

I really don’t know how you come to that conclusion.  The successful execution of this gutsy call kept a premier punt returner from having a chance.  Kept a pretty high powered offense (that had been mostly bottled-up throughout the game) from initiating their last minute offense.  If the play was illegal the non-call was a huge mistake.  If the play was legal it was gutsy, well executed and rang the death knell on the Birds.

Highlands already had 2 opportunities to win the game and went three and out.  Stand by what I said.  No impact on end result.  Learn from it and get better.  Next time control the final result like Boyle did.

 

43 minutes ago, Jack of all Trades said:

Highlands already had 2 opportunities to win the game and went three and out.  Stand by what I said.  No impact on end result.  Learn from it and get better.  Next time control the final result like Boyle did.

 

Agree with everything you just said, except “no impact”.  Ballgames are 48 minutes, not 47 minutes long.

When watching the Video, Boyle did not have 5 guys in the backfield.  One of the receivers that was lined up was point to the ground like he was on the line of scrimmage.  The other of the other receivers that was lineup was in the backfield along with the 2 blockers, which one was the QB.  If you noticed, I didn't see a punter on the field.  So, with the 2 in the backfield alone with one receiver and the player on the sideline makes 4.   Plus, I think and I could be wrong, a player has to report in and go pass the number on the field but then can come closer to the sideline not sure.  But I have always heard the Official tell the receiver to go passed the numbers and then they could come out pass the numbers. 

Just for further clarification for anyone who has disputed the formation. Here is a screen shot of the formation without Drakeford in the screen who we all know is standing near the sideline. You can see outside WR Schepman checking with the official stating he is on the line and he gets the thumbs up and never moves from that spot. Now if he is on then so is Driver which would put 7 on the line and 4 in the backfield which is a legal formation all day everyday in the game of football.

I think this is the most discussion I may have ever seen for a play that did not DIRECTLY influence the outcome.  You notice I said directly.  Was it important, yes.  If it wasn't the Boyle coaches would not have been so happy.  Did it determine the winner, no.  

I wish we could get a definitive answer, either the play was within the rules or against the rules.

Anyone?

1 hour ago, CAT DIESEL POWER said:

Just for further clarification for anyone who has disputed the formation. Here is a screen shot of the formation without Drakeford in the screen who we all know is standing near the sideline. You can see outside WR Schepman checking with the official stating he is on the line and he gets the thumbs up and never moves from that spot. Now if he is on then so is Driver which would put 7 on the line and 4 in the backfield which is a legal formation all day everyday in the game of football.

In that case, If the inside receiver is also on the line— then he is ineligible to go downfield, which he does. So the formation is legal, but the receiver downfield is not. 5 yard penalty since he doesn’t touch the ball, replay the down. 

1 hour ago, theguru said:

I wish we could get a definitive answer, either the play was within the rules or against the rules.

Anyone?

The play was against the rules. My source is solid here. Illegal participation, 15 yard penalty, replay the down.

21 minutes ago, Pi said:

The play was against the rules. My source is solid here. Illegal participation, 15 yard penalty, replay the down.

I have several great sources as well that say it isn’t. Including several white hats from across the state. It’s going down to being based on opinion and on Friday the guys in charge didn’t think it was illegal which is what mattered.

I sent the play to Gene, he looks a little perplexed….

I think we are at a point that I really don’t care what they did during the game.  I think what people want answers to is, Is the play legal or not based on the definition of the rules for future reference?

There must be a Rules Interpreter in football in the KHSAA org that can shed some light.  
 

I love my friends that are “white hats” but I’m sure you ask 10 “white hats” you won’t get a unanimous answer. Just like they won’t all 100% penalize players with no knee pads ?.

On 9/15/2025 at 8:03 AM, RVaughn said:

This play still blows my mind.  Have to give Haddix a ton of credit for having the guts to call it in that situation.  99% of coaches are probably too fearful to call it in that situation.  The trust he put in a sophomore QB with first start to make that throw on 4th and 9 in own territory.  The trust in receiver to make that catch/play that they haven't targeted since the 1st game.   If that play doesn't work how different does this thread look today. 

Corbin used that play against Mayfield about 8 or so years ago. The play worked then also.

On 9/17/2025 at 11:32 AM, BLUEHOUND said:

1 hour ago, FrankNicodemus said:

I sent the play to Gene, he looks a little perplexed….

I think we are at a point that I really don’t care what they did during the game.  I think what people want answers to is, Is the play legal or not based on the definition of the rules for future reference?

There must be a Rules Interpreter in football in the KHSAA org that can shed some light.  
 

I love my friends that are “white hats” but I’m sure you ask 10 “white hats” you won’t get a unanimous answer. Just like they won’t all 100% penalize players with no knee pads ?.

The play is legal or not, based on not enough men on the line, inside receiver covered up and went down field on a forward pass, past the neutral zone, the WR didn’t get within nine yards of the ball after the ready for play etc. Seems like a cut and dry question. Was their intent to deceive? I’d say so based on the WR running to the sideline after going to the nine yards mark, but let’s hear a definitive answer. 

1 hour ago, FrankNicodemus said:

I think we are at a point that I really don’t care what they did during the game.  I think what people want answers to is, Is the play legal or not based on the definition of the rules for future reference?

There must be a Rules Interpreter in football in the KHSAA org that can shed some light.  

I love my friends that are “white hats” but I’m sure you ask 10 “white hats” you won’t get a unanimous answer. Just like they won’t all 100% penalize players with no knee pads ?.

This and when you add the ambiguity of the legality of this play to the leaping over players enforcement and knee pad enforcement what we are left with is a growing integrity issue with KHSAA football officials and the KHSAA/Commissioner Tackett .  I hate saying that but I believe it is warranted.