Hey-Ref

That is precisely why there are so many fair catches of punts, and not so many of free kicks.

Historically it was not permitted to return kicks from the end zone at any level of football. The NFL and NCAA have of course changed that rule, btu the NFHS has not done so yet. Like many other rules that eventually get changed, I imagine this rule will change for high school eventually also. It has been brought up in rules meetings lately but has not had enough votes to be changed yet. I have heard the safety argument, but I don't buy into it. I think it just one of the old rules that has been unchanged up to now.

Actually, the Newport Stadium construction was in the 1930's, part of the WPA projects.

Yep, Bombers!

Here also is a photgraph from the construction of NEwport Stadium from the 1940's, mayeb earlier.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/preps/football/2001-10-25-top10-stadiums-elder.htm

Geez, from Ryle football to Ryle's field. Talk about hijacking a thread. First, Ryle's field was one of the better grass fields around until Boone Co Schools saw fit to tell the greens keeping staff at Lassing Pointe they could no longer maintain the fields at Ryle, since they weren't doing so at Boone and Conner. Ryle's field went downhill after that. Boone was also not allowed to install artifical turf because Conner and Ryle did not have it. Narrow minded school board to be sure. Now, having a nice field does not make your team better or worse, but it does add to perceptions. Having quality facilities may provide a better atmosphere that allows for more community support, and player pride. Those things do help when trying to build a program. Ryle's program is definitely good, and definitely needs to get better to contend for state titles and complete with the upper eschelon of KHSAA football programs. Keep up the good work Ryle coaches and players. You're on the right track.

Ram, I don't think Ryle is so much hated as they are simply not taken too seriously. This is probably due to the lack of so called big wins. Ryle is a relatively new school and program compared to many others, and does not have a long winning tradition yet. As an official who has worked seveal Ryle games over the years, I can say that Ryle is a pretty good football school that needs to keep building on the successes they do have, and nail down some big wins. Schools like Ryle can halp the whole state of Kentucky by building parity in football around the state. It takes time, good facilities, coaching, community support, and player development. Ryle has most of that already. Here's to Ryle, and other schools on the verge of being perennial contenders, thus improving high school football all around the commonwealth.

Web cast links here: http://www.khsaa.net/

The difference is that in football 192 of the 220 schools are included in the playoffs. There are actually some better teams left out. In all other sports every team gets in. If you're going to let them all in, fine. If not, why not select the very best? I understand the sceduling dilema that smaller schools have. However, 1-9 means you've lost more than won in your division besides losing all the others. I've proposed solutons to this scheduling in the past. Feel free to go back through the archives and look at them.

I voted for 4, but with only 220 teams, maybe 3 is even better. Until there is more parity in KY football, 4 is all there should be. The playoff system in use in KHSAA is terrible, with too many bad teams getting berths. I'm sorry, but the concept of getting a playoff berth when a team is below .500 is just nonsensical. And when 1-9 and 0-10 teams get in, just give up. It's supposed to be about competition, not being rewarded for showing up and withstanding a beating.

I don't who the individuals are, but I've heard it will be 1 umpire from each region. After the first two rounds, the number will be reduced to 8 for the semi's and final. Julian Tackett probably knows who they are.

Sorry. I was assuming the case was that the player already played varisty football at school A. But it really matters not to me. I think if a player and his family puit that much emphasis on playing a sport, and it is improtant wher he plays, he should move it needed without penalty. What's most important is that he is enrolled and going to school somewhere. Athletics comes second. Or so I was taught.

I disagree. Surely the transfer rules were written as a way to control recruiting. But let's play what if. What if a family wants their son to play football at some other school? They need to move. If they are willing to go to that extent to get the boy into a new school, shouldn't they be allowed? Not many people will move to a new school district, as a percent of th whole, so Johnny can play for Coach X. Some will. So what? Besides, under current rules, there has not been a single complaint for recruiting to the KHSAA since 'no recruiting' rules were enacted. (Should be verified, but I heard that once from a reliable source.) Also, there is recruiting in college, and still plenty of schools have football teams, enough to compete on multiple levels with hundreds of other teams. Everyone cannot play on the same team. You can only play 11 at any time. Besides, there is no parity in KY football anyway, so how much worse could it get?

When I officiate a game I don't ask kids where they last attended school. If a transfer fouls, I flag it. If he scores I punch it up. Simple. Let 'em play.

Decisions have consequences. Rules are known or should be known. I think that if we truly believe what wwe espouse about the student coming before the athlete, it should not matter where a kid plays sports. Some will take advantage of the situation, but by and large, most families just go to school where the residency dictates.

This is old news. Eddie Eviston ( NCC & Georgetown ) will replace Bob Schneider.

NAIA Players in the NFL: http://naia.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/091005aaa.html

Good is good enough when college coaches make the offer.

Good is good enough when college coaches make the offer.

Technically yes. However, this would be a tough call to make. Here's why. A fake runner is typically discovered rather quickly. If a tackler has the fake runner in his grasp, it does not take long to learn he does not have the ball. Allowances must be made by officials for this delay in learning where the ball is and is not. I have heard many coaches complain about the fake runner being tackled, and they want us to call a foul for tackling a player who does not have the ball. We must allow for the defense to learn who has the ball and who does not. However, if the contact against the fake runner is unnecessarily rough, we can have another foul, but that is not usually the case.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=tundra Check out the Barrow Alaska Whalers. Then check out this link: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=tundrafolo Kind of puts things into perspective I think.

If the defender grabs the back or side of the collar, jersey or shoulder pads, and pulls the runner down by that, then yes it is. If he grabs loose jersey other than at the collar, then no.

Officials will always give the defense some room when reacting to fake runners. Afterall, the fake is designed for that very purpose, to make the defense think the wrong player has the ball. If a horse-collar tackle is made against a non-runner, it would not be a horse-collar foul, but still could be holding or unnecessary roughness.

The rule makes it illegal to tackle a runner by grasping the back or side collar (jersey or shoulder pads) and pulling the runner down. If B1 grabbed the horse-collar, and B2 wrapped the player around his legs, no horse-collar would be called. There should not be a horse-collar foul when more than one defender is involved in the tackle. There may also have been confusion about how this should be called since the NCAA and NFHS rules were slightly different. Many people, coaches, players, officials and fans were potentially confused about what was or was not a horse-collar foul. This new rule, and another year, should provide more consistent calls. I agree there were incorrect calls and incorrect no-calls. As officials become more accustomed to this rule, they'll get better at making the right call/no-call. Practice does make for better officiating as well as for players.