Jump to content

Deweyville 43 Sabine Pass 0/FINAL


WOSgrad

Recommended Posts

  • WOSgrad changed the title to Deweyville 43 Sabine Pass 0/FINAL

I'd like to give some well-deserved credit the Sabine Pass Sharks. It takes some testicular fortitude to only have 13-14 kids suited up and still practice everyday (it's not like y'all have the numbers to "get a look") to STILL show up and play hard, no matter the outcome. Very proud for these warriors that show up everyday! Good luck this Season Sharks and prayers for y'all to stay healthy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, THE DUDE said:

as usually you have no clue so you just make up some dumb answer.

keep up the good work..............

 

Easy fella...DV starters took a seat after the 1st Qtr. How about we leave it there. (Please message me if I could explain what a "running clock" means....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RedJollyRoger said:

Easy fella...DV starters took a seat after the 1st Qtr. How about we leave it there. (Please message me if I could explain what a "running clock" means....

point being the uil does not have a mercy rule of a running clock like tapes does.

so if you need me to explain that to you message me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't need the UIL to dictate the decisions we make to play a game (concerning mercy). I 'm humbled to see my team win with class. And also a healthy team leaving out of here un-injured to play another game next week. I appreciate the offer, but don't need you to explain anything to me, regarding the game. Thanks though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RedJollyRoger said:

We don't need the UIL to dictate the decisions we make to play a game (concerning mercy). I 'm humbled to see my team win with class. And also a healthy team leaving out of here un-injured to play another game next week. I appreciate the offer, but don't need you to explain anything to me, regarding the game. Thanks though!

technically the UIL does dictate the game since they are governing body. 

there are rules and procedures in place to shorten a game per the UIL.

it would funny if a complaint was filed with the UIL and the district committee ruled it a double forfeit. 

seems like there is A LOT you need explained to you about the game.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, THE DUDE said:

technically the UIL does dictate the game since they are governing body. 

there are rules and procedures in place to shorten a game per the UIL.

it would funny if a complaint was filed with the UIL and the district committee ruled it a double forfeit. 

seems like there is A LOT you need explained to you about the game.

 

I doubt there will be a complaint.

As you noted, the UIL does not provide for a running clock.  So in order for officials to do it, they must have the consent of both coaches.  So, the presumption is that both Prouse and Thibodeaux agreed to the running clock.

As Red Jolly Roger noted, even the Deweyville second teamers (or as much of a second team as you could have at the 2A-II level) got significant playing time.  I think we can be assured that every Sabine Pass Shark got significant playing time.

So all of the kids got significant playing time.  Both coaches agreed to it.  What is your problem with this game going to a running clock again?

If you wish, you can certainly approach the DEC, but I really doubt that messers Hodges, Willams (both Mark and Eric) and Miracle will find much merit in such a complaint, nor will their respective administrators.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, WOSgrad said:

I doubt there will be a complaint.

As you noted, the UIL does not provide for a running clock.  So in order for officials to do it, they must have the consent of both coaches.  So, the presumption is that both Prouse and Thibodeaux agreed to the running clock.

As Red Jolly Roger noted, even the Deweyville second teamers (or as much of a second team as you could have at the 2A-II level) got significant playing time.  I think we we can be assured that every Sabine Pass Shark got significant playing time.

So all of the kids got significant playing time.  Both coaches agreed to it.  What is your problem with this game going to a running clock again?

If you wish, you can certainly approach the DEC, but I really doubt that messers Hodges, Willams (both Mark and Eric) and Miracle will find much merit in such a complaint, as will their respective administrators.

 

I ran outta likes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, WOSgrad said:

I doubt there will be a complaint.

As you noted, the UIL does not provide for a running clock.  So in order for officials to do it, they must have the consent of both coaches.  So, the presumption is that both Prouse and Thibodeaux agreed to the running clock.

As Red Jolly Roger noted, even the Deweyville second teamers (or as much of a second team as you could have at the 2A-II level) got significant playing time.  I think we we can be assured that every Sabine Pass Shark got significant playing time.

So all of the kids got significant playing time.  Both coaches agreed to it.  What is your problem with this game going to a running clock again?

If you wish, you can certainly approach the DEC, but I really doubt that messers Hodges, Willams (both Mark and Eric) and Miracle will find much merit in such a complaint, nor will their respective administrators.

 

you are right i doubt there will be a complaint but why not just follow the rules and avoid this possible situation. if the coaches just keep running the ball the clock will run anyway. all it takes is for a coach to come back and say i did not agree to a running clock.

i guess it is okay to pick and choose which rules they follow and which ones don't matter. there is a rule for this why not follow it.

  1. Any time during the game, the playing time of any remaining period or periods may be shortened by mutual agreement of the opposing head coaches and the referee. (A. R. 3-2-2-I)

just ask BC baseball team about that JV kid that would run on the varsity. they doubted anybody would complain because most teams did this but look what happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, RedJollyRoger said:

I'd like to give some well-deserved credit the Sabine Pass Sharks. It takes some testicular fortitude to only have 13-14 kids suited up and still practice everyday (it's not like y'all have the numbers to "get a look") to STILL show up and play hard, no matter the outcome. Very proud for these warriors that show up everyday! Good luck this Season Sharks and prayers for y'all to stay healthy!

They also only had 2 practices and a walk through after their monday game against Burkeville. Suited out just 15 kids vs Deweyvulle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, THE DUDE said:

you are right i doubt there will be a complaint but why not just follow the rules and avoid this possible situation. if the coaches just keep running the ball the clock will run anyway. all it takes is for a coach to come back and say i did not agree to a running clock.

 

  1. Any time during the game, the playing time of any remaining period or periods may be shortened by mutual agreement of the opposing head coaches and the referee. 

I'm not certain this doesn't align with the UIL....Both coaches and the referee mutually agree to shorten the game....?  That's exactly what happens...What UIL laws have been broken?  And how?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, THE DUDE said:

you are right i doubt there will be a complaint but why not just follow the rules and avoid this possible situation. if the coaches just keep running the ball the clock will run anyway. all it takes is for a coach to come back and say i did not agree to a running clock.

i guess it is okay to pick and choose which rules they follow and which ones don't matter. there is a rule for this why not follow it.

  1. Any time during the game, the playing time of any remaining period or periods may be shortened by mutual agreement of the opposing head coaches and the referee. (A. R. 3-2-2-I)

just ask BC baseball team about that JV kid that would run on the varsity. they doubted anybody would complain because most teams did this but look what happened.

So we are now all for following every rule and guideline set out by the UIL?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, RedJollyRoger said:

I'm not certain this doesn't align with the UIL....Both coaches and the referee mutually agree to shorten the game....?  That's exactly what happens...What UIL laws have been broken?  And how?  

Timing Adjustments—ARTICLE 2

Approved Ruling 3-2-2

I. At halftime the score is 56-0. The coaches and the referee agree that the third and fourth quarters should be shortened to 12 minutes each. The coaches also request that the second half be played with a “running clock,” i.e., that the game clock not be stopped. RULING: The remaining quarters may be shortened to 12 minutes each. However, the “running clock” is not allowed; normal clock rules apply for the entire game.

 

pretty clear on the rule

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, WOSgrad said:

So we are now all for following every rule and guideline set out by the UIL?

Timing Adjustments—ARTICLE 2

Approved Ruling 3-2-2

I. At halftime the score is 56-0. The coaches and the referee agree that the third and fourth quarters should be shortened to 12 minutes each. The coaches also request that the second half be played with a “running clock,” i.e., that the game clock not be stopped. RULING: The remaining quarters may be shortened to 12 minutes each. However, the “running clock” is not allowed; normal clock rules apply for the entire game.

 

this rule is pretty cut and dry

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

    45,937
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    jacobmartin
    Newest Member
    jacobmartin
    Joined



  • Posts

    • There is a difference, but I wouldn't at all put it past Trump to do so if he had the infrastructure in place to get away with it like the Dems currently do.  With the amount of effort he's invested in ruining those republicans who've opposed him, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.
    • I think it will be an interesting case and could potentially come up for appeal on a different constitutional point.  The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the government doesn’t have to take possession of property in order to take it under the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.  If they take away the enjoyment or use of the property, it is no different than physically seizing it to build a highway for example. In a lawsuit as opposed to a criminal trial, a person/plaintiff doesn’t have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt but rather by a preponderance of evidence or “more likely” to have happened. Maybe it could be described as more likely yes than no or 51%-49%.  ”IF” it can be shown at a trial by a preponderance of evidence that Texas more likely yes than no caused the flooding with its engineering of the project, the people suing might have a case. But…. Does that alone win the case under the Fifth Amendment taking clause? I am not so sure. In US v Causby the Supreme Court ruled that the US government took a man’s property by flying airplanes over it. It was a public airport lawfully leased by the US in WWII and used to fly heavy bombers from it. Causby had an egg farm and the extremely loud noise of some airplanes under full power and sometimes at night with a landing lights being so close, it bothered and scared the family and damaged his egg farm production. Some chickens died and some quit laying eggs due to the extreme disturbances and lights at night. The Supreme Court ruled in Causby’s favor saying that the US had taken away the enjoyment and use of his land even though they didn’t physically seize it. The use of the land was hampered and that was enough for the taking clause under the Fifth Amendment. So in the IH-10 case, did Texas take away the use or enjoyment of the property?  A point of Causby was that the military bombers at a public airport was certainly for “public use”. The planes were public/taxpayers’ and the airport and lease were taxpayers’ property so the “public” definitely used it   My question in this lawsuit against Texas, even in they can prove the damage, was the damage (like in Causby) for “public use”? If not would it then not be a Fifth Amendment case but rather a state law case?  If Texas law denies such a lawsuit under state sovereignty and the families can’t prove a Fifth Amendment case of “public use”, could they prove the damages but still lose the case under state law? I haven’t read that anywhere and just thinking out loud. I could be way off base. But I think it could be interesting…..
    • Both sides...that is, everyone tries to get their people elected. Trump has not weaponized the government to bankrupt and imprison his political opponents. Night and day difference for me.
    • Surely you're aware of the great lengths Trump has gone to disrupt the elections and destroy the careers of republican politicians who haven't supported some of his most outlandish claims, or dared to question him or disagree with him about January 6.  You and I actually agree on this issue, although it must only go one way for you, because Trump's actions against republicans who didn't fall into lockstep with him is one of my biggest concerns about reelecting him.  The fact that he took action to affect literally hundreds of republican primaries from national elections down to municipal levels across the country, is concerning. It would've been one thing had he done it in an effort to help republicans win. Instead his purpose was to push out his perceived detractors and install MAGA politicians at every level of government in as many places as possible, and has resulted in a fractured republican party.
    • Lmao. No doubt. With a name like that, he would've gotten made fun of even if he was home-schooled.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...