Ryle needs to get back to basic fundamentals and learn how to tackle. Not sure how many they missed tonight, but too many to count.

 

Just for "fun", I'm going to re-watch the tape tonight and count, but I'll guess in advance it'll somewhere around 40. Heck, I distinctly recall one play alone (a Simpson run, of course) where they had five of them.

I'm not sure how to send a p. m. I don't think giving out these kids names over a thread would be right. So if you p m me I think I should be able to respond.

 

You're right. Probably not a good idea. I'll send you one now.

Absolutely dead wrong. You need to watch the game again if you believe this. The blocker was in front of Simpson. He was grabbing the back of Carney's jersey with his left hand and grabbing his pads up at the neckline with his right hand. Absolute hold right in front of the official and should have been called.

 

As far as I could tell on the fumble, there was no whistle and the refs nearest the play throught it was a fumble (hence no whistle). It wasn't until well after the play that the side judge came running it to claim he was down and reversed their call. And he was 100% wrong. Very obvious on tape.:puke:

 

I assure you that my opinion is correct on the non-holding call.

 

As to the "fumble": :deadhorse:

Edited October 10, 200916 yr by offside

I assure you that my assessment is correct on the non-holding call.

 

As to the "fumble": :deadhorse:

 

Watch the tape. On two different angles, you can clearly see #51 grabbing his left jersey arm sleeve with his left hand and grabbing his neckline with his right hand. The defender was still in front of Simpson when the hold started and the hold continued on as Simpson passed just to the side of him. If you think this play wasn't worthy of being called a hold, that's a shame. Blatant hold. Even the announcers comment on it several times. Enough said. You're welcome to your own assessment. Didn't affect the outcome of the game anyways.

I assure you that my opinion is correct on the non-holding call.

 

:

 

Here's what we saw as non-officials.

 

SK blocker gets what appeared to be a good block on Carney. Simpson goes by Carney. Carney tries to disengage from the blocker to chase Simpson . OL grabs Carney's jersey as Carney is turning to run.

 

Is there something in the wording of the rule that would prevent that from being called a hold?

I'd say that's a pretty sound philosophy.

 

And of course I know that I'm defending a call that is disputable via replay. I've missed a few of those myself.:isurrender:

 

I'm not trying to beat a dead horse or blast the official. We make mistakes. My point/question/argument is that you can't call something you didn't see and that's the way I took your "if in doubt...." comment.

I'm surprised Marksberry didn't call the over-ruling official over and give him a chest bump!

 

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

Unbelievable...The ball popped out and the side judge said that his progress had stopped. That man should be ashamed.

No offense taken. The replay clearly shows that it was a fumble.

 

High school officials are simply not used to having multiple angles of instant replay and NFL commentators critiquing their work. Otherwise, they'd already be in a BCS college town most Friday nights.

 

That's my only point.

 

On tv the official was looking right at the play. It was horrible, you seem to make a lot of excuses for bad officiating.:irked:

Here's what we saw as non-officials.

 

SK blocker gets what appeared to be a good block on Carney. Simpson goes by Carney. Carney tries to disengage from the blocker to chase Simpson . OL grabs Carney's jersey as Carney is turning to run.

 

Is there something in the wording of the rule that would prevent that from being called a hold?

 

No, there is no wording that prevents the action from being ruled a hold.

 

My opinion is based on the runner being beyond the defender when restraint was demonstrated.

Would you rather get held or get trucked or juked by Simpson?

I'm not trying to beat a dead horse or blast the official. We make mistakes. My point/question/argument is that you can't call something you didn't see and that's the way I took your "if in doubt...." comment.

 

C'mon, Clyde. I did not invent the "if in doubt..." principles.

Game over, can we move on. The better team won. Ryle needs to start thinking about Conner. And S.K. needs to stay focused.

SK needs to improve each week from here on out. With their remaining schedule they should be getting back ups in a good bit to get ready for a playoff run.

C'mon, Clyde. I did not invent the "if in doubt..." principles.

 

Brother, I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm just questioning the logic of the "if in doubt..." Nothing more.

Well, before the Highlands-Saint X game I doubt many people thought Highlands had a real good chance of beating Saint X, and look how that turned out.

 

With how great Simpson is, how good SK's offense is performing, and the abrupt change Highlands has had in the QB position here lately, who really knows how a HHS-SK game would go right now???

 

One thing's for sure: Highlands and Simon Kenton are definitely the two best teams in NKY right now.

 

Congrats to SK and best wishes for the rest of the season.

 

Absolutely congrats to SK. They look to have a good shot at making it back to the finals. A 6A champ in NKY would be awsome and this might be the year. Interestingly, Ryle gets a rematch with HHS & may possibly get one with SK too. Good luck Raiders, you've got to get back on track vs Conner next week. While not many people picked HHS beating St. X, after it happened, who besides true Bomber fans picked St. X to beat Elder? Anything can happen.