All Activity

Speculation without knowing the number. That was that soccer site basically "guessing" without knowing the actual number.

I would say it didn't hurt. Come on acting like having every offensive play call in the first half didn't play a part is naive 😂

So the watch is why lcm won the game? C'mon. Right wrong or indifferent move on.

Gaining a competitive advantage is 100% a part of sports. Sign stealing , deflating footballs, ect..ect Why shouldn't Smalley be pissed in the scenario above. I think anyone on his side of the situation is pissed right now. At the time that game goes a long way for the DC. At the end of the day no rules were truly broken. Lying during and afterwards on having the watch is definitely low on the integrity scale ... especially if video shows otherwise.

Nick just posted lumberton moves up to 5A for soccer.

You mean to tell me Lumberton lost 50 kids in the last two years? Impossible

Coach Smalley is an excellent coach and a good person. What an asinine statement by a Lumberton fan on him being a sore loser. For the LC-M coach that did not give the watch back, he should be suspended

Caldwell 532.5 Lorena 539 Newton 282 Shiner 201 Refugio 188

Lol I been asked several times that already from my buddies, I’m excited for it. Been a while since I ate Goode Company,

Got room for one more Sunday? lol

Here are the details that I know. In the LC-M/BC game of two weeks ago an incident happened at the beginning of the game that caused BC to raise questions. BC has electronic wristbands for their offensive play calling. The offensive players wear these "watches" and the offensive co. gives the play call from his tablet to these watches. This is the first year that UIL has allowed teams to use these devices. BC and a couple of other area teams use these devices. I hear they are pretty expensive. But that's here nor there. At the beginning of the game (opening kickoff) an LC-M player found one of these "watches" and instead of giving it to a game official (which in NCAA rules, you are required to) he gave it to one of his coaches. The coach never gave it to an official. It was shown on game film the coach being handed the "watch". It was also shown on game film during the game that this coach, who is an offensive coach, stayed very close to the defensive co. all during the first half. BC did not learn of the watch missing until right before halftime. They asked for it back. But it is not the responsibility of game officials to ask the opponent for it. School admins, coaches have to get involved. TASO has no say so in the matter. They are only responsible when given the device to get it back to rightful team. BC even had coaches and admins search LC-M sidelines during halftime to look for watch. There is also no in game penalty to access the team who confiscated the device. LC-M claimed they did not have the device and has yet to turn it over. But video evidence shows otherwise. What the video doesn't prove if the coach or coaches were able to use the device to their advantage. But the halftime score was 17-0 in favor of LC-M. BC stopped using their devices in 2nd half. Final score was 24-16, LC-M. A meeting today of the district supts. to discuss this issue and vote on a possible forfeiture or reprimands. The vote was 3-3. So no forfeiture. This is definitely an ethics situation and not necessarily a rules violation. DEC and UIL would have to govern and determine what type action. IMO, it's a black eye on all involved but like I stated earlier, should not warrant a forfeiture of game.

4A D2 Madisonville 3 Liberty 2 (23-25,25-12,25-19,18-25,15-11)

Talent may have dropped some as of late ,the naked eye can’t tell by watching a game..the first couple years after he left the talent was identical.Hard for me to believe talent dropped all of a sudden though since it hasn’t”dropped “since 1977!

Smalley being a sore loser

Friday Night Lumberton vs LCM game dinner at Rikenjaks Saturday Lamar Game, tailgate and beer garden Sunday Texans vs Jags tailgate Goode Company BBQ catering at one tent and was invited for company box suite was told Ninfa’s fajitas and margs will be unlimited in there.

vote was 3-3, it takes a majority vote for penalty to be taken of the alleged violation HJ, Lumberton and Vidor voted in favor of LCM Huffman, Liberty, Livingston voted in favor of Bridge City

5A D1 College Station 3 Barbers Hill 0 (25-14,25-23,25-20) A&M Consolidated 3 West Brook 1 (25-15,25-18,22-25,25-13) 3A D2 Hardin 3 East Bernard 1 (16-25,25-23,25-23,25-21)

I see the results. Not debatable! It's my understanding that he's just been replaced as starting QB. Probably never would have happened if Dodge was his coach. So...

No, I believe they were around the same numbers as they are now with Thompson.

You know more about what's best for the kid than the kids dad who is a long-time coach? I think I would defer to the parent for "getting the most out of their kid".

1. Humble at Kingwood 2. Summer Creek at North Shore 3. Barbers Hill at Beaumont West Brook 4. Galveston Ball at Lufkin 5. Crosby at Angleton 6. Fort Bend Kempner at Friendswood 7. Huntsville at Splendora 8. Lake Creek at West Fork 9. Montgomery at Nederland 10. Port Neches-Groves at Dayton 11. Bridge City at Huffman 12. Hardin-Jefferson at Liberty 13. Little Cypress-Mauriceville at Lumberton 14. Livingston at Vidor 15. Hamshire-Fannett at West Orange-Stark 16. Silsbee at Shepherd 17. Tarkington at Jasper 18. Crockett at Fairfield 19. Teague at Diboll 20. New Waverly at Trinity 21. Woodville at Kountze 22. San Augustine at Timpson 23. Colmesneil at West Hardin 24. Hull-Daisetta at Evadale 25. Apple Springs at Burkeville

Wow… this is very alarming. I’ll be waiting to hear the story behind this…. But for a LCM coach to be suspended makes you go hmm…

Correct. I agree. No forfeit was warranted.

My sources indicate a 3-3 vote regarding forfeit (I did not think forfeit was warranted personally)

4A D2 Bridge City 3 Hardin Jefferson 0 (25-21,25-17,25-14)