St. Xavier 24 Trinity 15

[rockmom]

For the record, both Coach Beatty and Coach Glaser wanted the 2006 T vs. X game to be recorded as "No Contest". The fact that a winner had to be declared was a technicality imposed by the KHSAA because there was no way to reschedule the game to finish it. No one is "happy" with the 2006 result. Yes, T won. But I know they'd rather have played the whole game and lost than take a win with an *.

[Riverside 157]

For the 2006 game, I felt as if the Trinity team was on a roll in that first 10 minutes. However, Ive seen 31 years of these games and there are always momentum swings and counter attacks. So, I have to believe that the St. X team would have started playing at some time.... and that the Trintiy team may have not been in a position to keep the pace up that they had initially started with.... Its all speculation and its hard to judge a 48 minute game on its first 10 minutes.....

[Xgrad-JAGdad]

I've always admitted my bias while my son was playing, no denying that, but you'z guys make it sound like T petitioned the KHSAA gods for a ruling or something Tony Soprano helped with. Was it sought - no, was it a rule- apparently so. Tell you what, to end this banter I'll concede... we'll call it 33-28, 24-15, 17-11... whatever makes you happy. I'll just go on with the memory I have of knowing who left the field that night with smiles on their faces and who had tails between their legs.

[Riverside 157]

If X continued to improve during the next two months after that game then please tell us how you lost to Male and T beat Male. Let the spinning begin.

 

 

I for one would say that the improvment that the 2006 team made after the Trinity game, was mostly "theoretical". There was a lot of hope, lot of dreams and too much reality. Nothing against the kids, coaches etc., that X team did not have the will to strive for greater things. Hence the lopsided loss at Male in the playoffs. Possible one of the worst X football games I have ever seen. As a group, they did not play inspired football, IMHO. That was last year, there seems to be a big difference this year in attitude, effort and commitment. I think this group wants to accomplish a few things....

 

:thumb:

[PepRock01]

For the 2006 game, I felt as if the Trinity team was on a roll in that first 10 minutes. However, Ive seen 31 years of these games and there are always momentum swings and counter attacks. So, I have to believe that the St. X team would have started playing at some time.... and that the Trintiy team may have not been in a position to keep the pace up that they had initially started with.... Its all speculation and its hard to judge a 48 minute game on its first 10 minutes.....

 

 

There is no doubt that this year's X squad could have responded to that sort of situation effectively. My question though would St.X's team last year, with its noted chemistry issues and special teams gaffes, have been able to knuckle down and come back?

 

For what it's worth I would have preferred for the entire game to have been played. Alas it wasn't. While I, in principle, understand the A.D.'s agreeing to consider the game a no-contest, they are not the governing body of HS sports in Kentucky. Thus, according to the rules that all Kentucky teams that field football teams must follow, the Rocks were awarded with the win. Prior to the game both teams could have agreed to allow 12 men on the field at a time, with both coaches and A.D.'s agreeing to it, but it wouldn't have changed the fact that it would have still been in violation of the rules as they were set down.

 

A "gentleman's agreement," in the end means little to the official rules of the game.

 

As I said, I would have rather the entire game have been played. But since it wasn't we have to play with the hand we were dealt. Besides, you X fans STILL have a lead on us either way. Official KHSAA records count it as a win for the Shamrocks. You can complain, offer logical and coherent arguements to the contrary but the rules that both schools abide by say one thing. I for one won't argue to the contrary.

 

Although as Diogenes eloquently stated, it does depend on which side of the argument you are on.

[CentreRocks]

Guys ease up a bit here.. The question on coach Beatty is fair. There is absolutly no question he has done an oustanding job at Trinity. But that is not the question. Reread the question..... "IF" I know, IF questions are speculation. We all seem to do a lot of speculation on here so I thought why not speculate on this topic. I know that Servino and Wright got out of the coaching seat for "other" reasons, I just have to think that D.L had an influence on their decision..... Which brings me to the question at hand, Would Trinity hold on to Beaty if he had a losing record against St. X?? A simple explaination and reason is fine, I was just wondering. I dont think he would ever have a losing record to the Tigers, He has done an outstanding job......

Let me ask it again, in your hypothetical has he still won 5 of the last 6 State titles and been to the Finals every year he has coached but one?

[Riverside 157]

^^ Xgradrockdad - We are just yaking here. I respect your opinion. I hope that your son never loses that feeling of accomplishment on that game. I think its why we play sports and strive to achieve goals. Like I said earlier, the Rocks were rolling for the first 10 minutes... but I have a hard time tring to envision what the final would have been. We will never know but Im sure that many Trinity faithful would think that it could have been something like 35 - 0... Im sure there are St. X faithful that felt that it could have ended 17 - 13 Tigers..... So, there you go, speculation on both ends and it did not settle anything.... All we know for sure is that after 10 minutes of a incomplete 48 minute game, Trinity was ahead 10 - 0.

 

[Diogenes]

I've always admitted my bias while my son was playing, no denying that, but you'z guys make it sound like T petitioned the KHSAA gods for a ruling or something Tony Soprano helped with. Was it sought - no, was it a rule- apparently so. Tell you what, to end this banter I'll concede... we'll call it 33-28, 24-15, 17-11... whatever makes you happy. I'll just go on with the memory I have of knowing who left the field that night with smiles on their faces and who had tails between their legs.

 

XgradROCKdad, you are reading too much into the various posts, It seems a nerve was hit, and I do not think X posters wish that on you. Nowhere, even with the best X spinning, do I see anything like "you'z guys make it sound like T petitioned the KHSAA gods for a ruling or something Tony Soprano helped with. "

Also, there is no need for you to concede anything. The issue is not whether Trinity would have won had the game been played to conclusion-it wasn't. (Although had this year's game been called shortly after the outset T would have won-and we know that they did not). The issue is also not whether the game was an official Trinity victory-the KHSAA says it was. The issue, to many, is whether the institutions honor their word given one another that night.

[PepRock01]

XgradROCKdad, you are reading too much into the various posts, It seems a nerve was hit, and I do not think X posters wish that on you. Nowhere, even with the best X spinning, do I see anything like "you'z guys make it sound like T petitioned the KHSAA gods for a ruling or something Tony Soprano helped with. "

Also, there is no need for you to concede anything. The issue is not whether Trinity would have won had the game been played to conclusion-it wasn't. (Although had this year's game been called shortly after the outset T would have won-and we know that they did not). The issue is also not whether the game was an official Trinity victory-the KHSAA says it was. The issue, to many, is whether the institutions honor their word given one another that night.

 

 

Actually I believe if the game had been called at the same time as it was last year, St.X would have won 7-3.

 

Even so you could see the difference in energy between the teams in each game. Trinity came into 2006 pumped and ready to go, really hungry for the win. X came into the 2007 game with the same look about them.

[Diogenes]

There is no doubt that this year's X squad could have responded to that sort of situation effectively. My question though would St.X's team last year, with its noted chemistry issues and special teams gaffes, have been able to knuckle down and come back?

 

For what it's worth I would have preferred for the entire game to have been played. Alas it wasn't. While I, in principle, understand the A.D.'s agreeing to consider the game a no-contest, they are not the governing body of HS sports in Kentucky. Thus, according to the rules that all Kentucky teams that field football teams must follow, the Rocks were awarded with the win. Prior to the game both teams could have agreed to allow 12 men on the field at a time, with both coaches and A.D.'s agreeing to it, but it wouldn't have changed the fact that it would have still been in violation of the rules as they were set down.

 

A "gentleman's agreement," in the end means little to the official rules of the game.

 

As I said, I would have rather the entire game have been played. But since it wasn't we have to play with the hand we were dealt. Besides, you X fans STILL have a lead on us either way. Official KHSAA records count it as a win for the Shamrocks. You can complain, offer logical and coherent arguements to the contrary but the rules that both schools abide by say one thing. I for one won't argue to the contrary.

 

Although as Diogenes eloquently stated, it does depend on which side of the argument you are on.

 

 

Well stated, PepRock01. Perhaps we can move on to something else. For example, jimmyref gave an outstanding in depth game analysis. I would like to see a similar analysis provided by some on the Trinity side of the ledger that I feel are knowledgeable about football, such as CentreRocks or RockPride.

[Xgrad-JAGdad]

^ It's all good..... thanks Dio and 157. How about we get back to what we all enjoy.... whipping up on other schools?

[CentreRocks]

Well stated, PepRock01. Perhaps we can move on to something else. For example, jimmyref gave an outstanding in depth game analysis. I would like to see a similar analysis provided by some on the Trinity side of the ledger that I feel are knowledgeable about football, such as CentreRocks or RockPride.

I posted my analysis on Saturday: http://www.bluegrasspreps.com/showpost.php?p=2401129&postcount=66

 

Whether that it is knowledgeable or not is up for debate.

[SHAMROCK69]

XgradROCKdad, you are reading too much into the various posts, It seems a nerve was hit, and I do not think X posters wish that on you. Nowhere, even with the best X spinning, do I see anything like "you'z guys make it sound like T petitioned the KHSAA gods for a ruling or something Tony Soprano helped with. "

Also, there is no need for you to concede anything. The issue is not whether Trinity would have won had the game been played to conclusion-it wasn't. (Although had this year's game been called shortly after the outset T would have won-and we know that they did not). The issue is also not whether the game was an official Trinity victory-the KHSAA says it was. The issue, to many, is whether the institutions honor their word given one another that night.

 

Your last sentence implies that T did not honor their word and X did. If that is your intent you have brought spinning to a new level.

[spindoc]

This one is tired and closed!