Under the Lights

knock it down.........KNOCK IT DOWN! (in my best Chris Berman voice)

:thumb:And I'll add that Christian Co. played some inspired football tonight, credit their coaching staff and players. All in all not a bad season for a very young Owensboro Sr. team. I have a feeling that this team will be one to reckon with in years to come. :devil:

"Get in my Belly!"

Devils, Devils!! Sr. 38 Central 10

Greenwood has a nice little ball club this year and should win, I'll go with: Greenwood 31 Butler 17

It's amazing that Coach Warner and staff can go from being the greatest football minds ever to the worst coaches in the entire state all in the span of 2 years. Whatever happened to being loyal and supporting your coach/team no matter what?

Ah how soon they forget. The really, really sad part about this completely unecessary public debaccle is that when you boil it down it is all about a few egos. It's about people putting themselves before the kids. Because I've yet to meet the coach that does this for the money. What a sad state of affairs CovCath football (or even general football) has become when it becomes more important to win and stroke the egos of influential boosters than to teach young men the RIGHT way, even if it may not be what they'd hoped it would be. I would imagine that the constant coaching turnover that is happening in Park Hills won't be a good thing for the program in the long run. And public stories like these will certainly take the luster off an already difficult position to fill. Stand behind your team. Support your kids. And just imagine what those that mumble under their breath or publicly air dirty laundry say about YOU when your not there.

This is why linemen shouldn't be allowed to touch the ball..........

This one is always this close......regardless of the records.

Yes, last I had checked.

I certainly think you have better odds drawing from 3000, but there is a very considerable talent pool in the Cinncinnati area. I'd bet that if you pulled a list of Division I signees over the past few years the Cincinnati vs. Kentucky numbers would be comparable, not to mention draftees. I do think it would be a competitive game though for sure. There certainly wouldn't be a staggering difference in talent one way or the other. BTW, IMO the team from Princeton of which you speak is not one of the elite teams, talent wise, in the Cincinnati area.

OK, I may be a little slow here, but exactly where can I find these rankings? I have looked all over BGP but can't seem to find them. Am I just having a senior moment here? :confused:

That picture looks just like Dan........ Congrats Coach Rall and good luck!

To some extent I agree. But there is certainly something to be said for having success and building upon that success. I don't think anyone would say that losing to Elder by 50 would be better for their program (especially one not as established as say Highlands) than beating a 1A school. It is awful hard to get kids to buy into a system without some measure of success. Hard to say which is more important, getting kids to buy into the program or the lessons learned from playing a successful football team.

Rick Hornsby - Ludlow

EVERY team should be practicing in just helmets. No longer can you practice in just "uppers" in July. I'd imagine there is plenty to work on, technique wise, other than hand placement and pad level before you get to full contact. If anything I think the new rule will force coaches to do so rather than just "hitting" for the sake of contact.

It is legal, but there is a reason you've never seen it. First, the pitcher has basically committed himself to a balk should the runner not go. Any bluff by the runner, or even if the runner falls down, and this would be a balk as there is no play at 2nd. The play has to be AT the base. Not many are willing to risk giving the runner a free base on a hunch. Second, the non pivot foot cannot swing "wide" in a circular motion. It must go directly to 2nd. If it does swing wide it is a balk as either A)the pitcher has committed himself to the plate or B) the pitcher has stepped towards first and thrown to 2nd. So in short, yes it is possible, but the reason you don't see it is because it is, at best, an unneccessary risk. Not to mention it takes a pretty high degree of athleticism to pull off, and will more times than not, result in a balk.

This is correct. In addition I'd add that his non pivot foot cannot cross the rubber, and his motion cannot be one that is abnormal from his normal motion, with intent to deceive the runner.

I think he is saying to start your motion by stepping off with your pivot foot. This is still a balk. You cannot simulate a pitch or pitching motion while doing this.

That's one saavy pitcher, that's about all I can say about that. The non-pivot leg straight up and then to 2nd is fairly common among better baseball teams. Where it gets dicey is if it stops at the top of the motion before coming to 2nd.

:thumb:Right on. The runner is awarded a MINIMUM of one base when obstruction occurs (going away from and not back into, a bag). That doesn't limit the award to one base. The runner could be awarded home if the situation called for it. Generally, the umpires tend to lean in the direction of erring on the side of the runner, since he was the one obstructed. If it was a bang bang play at 3rd I'd say you have a legitimate argument. BTW this is a very common misinterpretation/misapplication of the rule.

This isn't interference, it is obstruction, and there does not have to be contact for the obstruction to be called. That being said, if it was a little league game, I'm assuming there was only one umpire and at that point your asking a lot out of one set of eyes. The runner should be awarded third if the umpire felt he would have achieved third base safely had the obstruction not occurred.

The foot can go straight up, but it must land going towards 3B. It also cannot stop, delay, or lean toward the plate in any manner.

I don't see how this could happen and not be a balk. According to both OBR and FED rules the pitcher must step first to the bag he is throwing to before the throw occurs. If I'm planning on going to first I don't see how I could continue swinging my non pivot foot around to throw to 2nd (and actually get it going in the direction of 2nd, note that the step can't be somewhere between the two). I guess this is correct in theory but I don't see how it could be physically applied. I can also tell you that in the 2nd example that will be called a balk 9 times out of 10. The pitcher is allowed to throw to an unoccupied base ONLY when he is making a play, thus implying that a play MUST be there to be made. If the runner bluffs going it is a balk.

:thumb: This is correct.