Jump to content

PNG@Vidor


Indianforever

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Mr. Buddy Garrity said:

Not sure yall beat Lee but yall should beat Ned by double-digits. Im serious too. 

 

38 minutes ago, FrodoNDN said:

I actually think you can beat Lee. If you put enough pressure on their QB he will get flustered on his throws. Also think you have the db's to stop big plays. 

Those are not hot takes 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Mr. Buddy Garrity said:

Not sure yall beat Lee but yall should beat Ned by double-digits. Im serious too. 

 

44 minutes ago, FrodoNDN said:

I actually think you can beat Lee. If you put enough pressure on their QB he will get flustered on his throws. Also think you have the db's to stop big plays. 

I guess we could always beat BH too... 😆 that would probably get us in also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Boneyard Boys said:

Vidor 10 unanswered in the first half

Neches 18 unanswered in the 2nd half

I’d say they got all they wanted last night from a game Vidor squad. 

We have to beat Nederland and/or Lee to secure one of those playoff spots.

No no no Vidor 7 unanswered plus 3 ref gimmme points. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, vidor96pirates said:

Yes there is with under 1 minute to play. 

Didn't know this, but, yes there is.

Here is a primer:

10-SECOND RUNOFF

 

WHEN IT APPLIES:

Þ    It must be in the final minute of the second or fourth quarter.

Þ    The clock must be running.

Þ    Before a change of team possession.

1.      A foul is committed which immediately stops the clock (prevents the snap). OR

2.      A player’s helmet comes off (not the direct result of a foul) and is the only reason the clock is stopped.  OR

3.      A player is injured and is the only reason the clock is stopped.

 

THE OPTIONS:

Þ    The offended team may accept or decline the 10-second subtraction.

Þ    If the 10-second subtraction is accepted, the game clock will start on the Referee’s ready for play signal.

Þ    If the 10-second subtraction is declined, the game clock will start on the snap.

Þ    The 10-second subtraction may be declined while the penalty yardage is accepted.

Þ    If the yardage penalty is declined, the 10-second subtraction is declined by rule.

Þ    The team to whom the 10-second subtraction is being applied may avoid the 10-second subtraction by utilizing a remaining time out.

 

Courtesy: TASO - SFA Chapter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, WOSgrad said:

Didn't know this, but, yes there is.

Here is a primer:

10-SECOND RUNOFF

 

 

 

 

 

WHEN IT APPLIES:

 

 

Þ    It must be in the final minute of the second or fourth quarter.

 

 

Þ    The clock must be running.

 

 

Þ    Before a change of team possession.

 

 

1.      A foul is committed which immediately stops the clock (prevents the snap). OR

 

 

2.      A player’s helmet comes off (not the direct result of a foul) and is the only reason the clock is stopped.  OR

 

 

3.      A player is injured and is the only reason the clock is stopped.

 

 

 

 

 

THE OPTIONS:

 

 

Þ    The offended team may accept or decline the 10-second subtraction.

 

 

Þ    If the 10-second subtraction is accepted, the game clock will start on the Referee’s ready for play signal.

 

 

Þ    If the 10-second subtraction is declined, the game clock will start on the snap.

 

 

Þ    The 10-second subtraction may be declined while the penalty yardage is accepted.

 

 

Þ    If the yardage penalty is declined, the 10-second subtraction is declined by rule.

 

 

Þ    The team to whom the 10-second subtraction is being applied may avoid the 10-second subtraction by utilizing a remaining time out.

 

 

 

Courtesy: TASO - SFA Chapter

Word on the street is there was a 10 second run off from 11.6 to 1.6 that’s why there were zeros on the clock when the kick went through. So yea it was a legitimate 3 points, either way, who cares?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Boneyard Boys said:

Chief you won GTFOOHWTBS.

 

2 hours ago, Boneyard Boys said:

Word on the street is there was a 10 second run off from 11.6 to 1.6 that’s why there were zeros on the clock when the kick went through. So yea it was a legitimate 3 points, either way, who cares?

You feel better now. It was a good game even with that powder puff ref crew screwing the pooch on multiple occasions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vidor was playing ball in the first half. Second half as usual coaching staff made some adjustments and defense did what it does and caused 3 fumbles. and capitalized on them to come back and get the win. I will say this the refs were brutal 7 penalties in 7 minutes for 100 yards was ridiculous. I was watching the news lol commentating on how png wasn't doing so well with one yard rushing in the first half.  The penalties were the cause of that, every time we got a first down there was a phantom hold to nullify the 20 yard run, smh. I would really have liked to have seen a cleaner game by both teams without the refs throwing a flag every other play.. I think Vidor has a good shot at the playoffs this year. Still need to make more throws and complete passes , but correct those turnovers and let the defense do their part and yall should be ok. PNG needs to start Dede, Kid has some good moves and can make things happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Physical Atmosphere said:

My take on this game:

1. What a weird night, had a twilight zone feel.

2. The refs controlled the game too much and I saw ridiculous calls against both teams.

3.This is the first time I can say that I saw no weakness in Vidors Defense. Especially the D- line , they were blowing the O-Line out on every play. The offense needed to sustain drives in the second half in order to give the defense rest but penalties stalled the drives.

4. Groves respected the passing that Vidor displayed in the Crosby game just enough to give us running room.

5. Groves saw that we weren't going to pass so they changed that in the second half.

6. Vidor played too conservative in the second half and reverted back to that reverse pivot quick pitch to the TB. UGHHHH

7. Groves is lacking a  running back

8. Our announcer still sux (EMBARRASSING)

9. It was good to see two teams playing defense for a change. It seems like it's been years since I've seen that

10. This game was just too weird to get a good read on anything else

 

11.  You will get towed if you park in a no parking zone! Lol! Our parking sucks but so do a lot schools in our district. 😁 I like our announcer.  I find his candor refreshing in a day and age where you have to be politically correct about everything so you don’t offend anyone.😁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,892
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    corixek265
    Newest Member
    corixek265
    Joined



  • Posts

    • That’s a president? How embarrassing. 
    • Really good hire! As I stated previously on this thread, Mike T has been an essential part of WB’s success the last few years & is a student of the game & I have a ton of respect for how he goes about things as a coach. Big on teaching kids how to do things the right way to prepare them for not only basketball but the game of life. He’ll be fine there, my only question is what kind of talent does WB have returning?  Best thing about this situation for Mike T is WB will be 5A for at least the next 2 years, so he should win a lot of games & have some deep playoff runs.
    • So which coaches kid gets the QB job? Trotter or Barrier
    • A Winnie land owner (and others) sued the State of Texas after they built IH-10 a few feet higher in order to help contain storm flooding. Sure enough a hurricane hit and flooded the land. The storm improvements worked!! Unfortunately the state sacrificed several people’s properties in using the interstate highway as a dam.  Richard DeVillier tried to sue Texas under our laws and Constitution and the US Constitution under the Fifth Amendment “taking clause” (eminent domain). After a favorable ruling in the federal district court on the right to sue Texas directly, the Fifth Circuit Court in New Orleans overturned that ruling and said that the DeVlier had no authority to sue Texas directly.  On Tuesday a unanimous US Supreme Court ruled that DeVillier and others had the right to sue Texas directly under Texas law and under the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution. The case is now sent back down to the lower court. DeVillier and others have not won their lawsuits as the case has not been decided on its merits at a trial. He still has to go to prove his case. What they did win was a unanimous Supreme Court agreeing that he has the right to bring Texas to trial for taking his property with just compensation.   
    • Don't jump?!  What?!
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...