PN-G bamatex

I still can't see any pictures.

I never argued that "Faircloth and the whole PN-G staff didn't know this rule." I said, citing Faircloth's statements in the press interview, that apparently this specific coach misinterpreted the rule. It's not stated anywhere, but I got the feeling from the interview that he might be a first year coach, and I saw someone put in here that he's actually a middle school coach. Back in the Burnett days, I remember middle school coaches helping out with high school games. Don't know if that's still the case or not, but if we're talking about someone coaching middle school, it seems plausible to me.

Let's go back to the exact text of the rule. NCAA Rule 1, Article 11(a) reads, in relevant part: "Television replay or monitor equipment is prohibited at the sidelines, press box or other locations within the playing enclosure for coaching purposes during the game." That last clause, "for coaching purposes during the game," appears to be the key element on which the PN-G coach's misinterpretation of the rule hinged. I suspect based on Coach Faircloth's statements, though I admittedly don't know for sure, that the misinterpretation hinged on the understanding that he couldn't take pictures or video with an iPad to be used in connection with coaching decisions during the game, but could still take pictures and video during the game to be used after the game is over, which is a reasonable interpretation based on this portion of the relevant rule. (I note here that it's also plausible he simply saw "television equipment" and distinguished that from an iPad which is not a television, but I think it more likely that a layman would reasonably understand this probably means video equipment of any kind.) The problem is that the sentence following that first one in the rule reads as follows: "Motion pictures, any type of film, facsimile machines, videotapes, photographs, writing-transmission machines and computers may not be used by coaches or for coaching purposes any time during the game or between periods." Now, as a lawyer, I can pick out based on the plain text that this second sentence acts to narrow the range of acceptable conduct posited by the first sentence. Where the first sentence simply says that coaches can't use television replay or monitor equipment in the specified areas for coaching purposes during a game, the second sentence acts as an absolute bar against any use of "[m]otion pictures, any type of film, facsimile machines, videotapes, photographs, writing-transmission machines and computers" by coaches at all during a game, regardless of the purpose of the use or the location of the equipment in the stadium. That's clear to someone trained to interpret rules for a living. But I can also see how a layman wouldn't immediately grasp that, and how the second sentence can easily be looked at as a contradiction of the first, or how the rule taken in its totality appears confusing at first glance, or how one would read into the second sentence the same conditions as those present in its immediate predecessor. It's very easy to understand why a layman, having just read the first sentence, would *presume* that the all-important final clause of the first sentence - "for any coaching purposes during the game" - carries over to the second sentence, even though it's not explicitly stated. Frankly, I've seen courts make bigger mistakes in construing poorly written provisions of actual statutes. And frankly, I think this rule needs to be redrafted to clear up any potential confusion. Honest, good faith mistakes can be made on easy misinterpretations. It happens in the real world all the time, and it's likely what happened here. In any event, if the facts are as I understand them to be, then this presumed misinterpretation would easily explain why a PN-G coach was taking pictures or video using an iPad during the game, but wasn't using that video or those pictures in connection with the game. The PN-G coach in question very likely thought that it was perfectly acceptable to take pictures and video of things he saw which he might think were important to mention during practice the following week. And if that is the case, as I suspect it to be, it's perfectly understandable why Nederland's coach would think that the infraction had no effect on the outcome of the game, and thus didn't warrant forfeiture - a position I happen to agree with, and an argument I think very well could win over the UIL on appeal.

I fail to see how that's applicable to what I said, but okay. In any event, it may not matter if it's a courtroom at all. If the coaches' minds were really made up based on ulterior motives before the meeting ever took place, that could be bad faith and the basis for a lawsuit. Just spitballing, here. And more to the point, all I'm saying is that if you're going to preach the "right and honorable" narrative, it's probably not a good idea to state your view that the district committee wasn't doing the "right and honorable" thing in voting the way it did.

Guys, guys, guys, clearly he was waiting for his girl to show up for some Netflix and chill.

You realize that if the votes were known before the meeting ever took place, it wasn't a "right and honorable" vote, right? That's akin to saying the jury had its mind made up before the trial ever started.

I didn't accuse the other schools of voting for selfish reasons. I simply said that Coach Barrow explicitly stated that he hoped nobody would, and this indicates to me he's less likely to have done so. So many presumptions on this board.

Look, I like Coach Barrow. I'm not being critical of him here, and I agree that he's a smart guy. Which is why it doesn't surprise me that he came to the exact same conclusion I did and wasn't afraid to voice that conclusion. If you want to assume that serves some ulterior purpose, that's on you. I tend to think the guy who was openly stating he hoped the other coaches didn't vote based on selfish reasons wouldn't vote for selfish reasons.

If that was the goal, it would be rational to simply decline to comment. After all, Nederland also plays Crosby this week.

Well if you'd like, we can see what the other moderators presume.

I think there's a significant difference between respecting your opponent and stating your rationale in a decision you made, but okay.

Speaking of infractions, SETXSports Forum Rules ban profanity.

The truth, maybe? I mean, if you want to say your own head coach is lying, that's your business, but I'm going to take him at his word.

Lol.

I'm not familiar with the UIL's appeals process, but ordinary appeals processes don't allow for additional fact finding in most circumstances (i.e., if polling a juror reveals something important, like I previously indicated). I suspect all that would ordinarily be up for review is the record as it was when the vote was taken.

On the contrary, they mean everything on appeal. Just like polling jurors can make a huge difference on appeal.

If Humble ISD policy says that the umbrella isn't allowed "for rain-deflecting purposes," like the NCAA rules say video equipment isn't allowed "for coaching purposes," I might make that argument.

No, I didn’t presume anything. I'm merely pointing out that the facts that were stipulated to by all of the parties involved don't include what you're arguing. Monte Barrow, one of the fact-finders who voted on this and the head coach of PN-G's arch rival, explicitly stated that the infraction had no effect on the outcome of a close game that came down to the final possession. If the facts were such that the coach taking the pictures was using them in a way that affected the outcome of the game, he wouldn't be saying that. My guess is that this coach was taking the pictures for use after the game during weekly practices. If true, that's a violation, to be sure, but not one that affected the outcome of the Crosby game. Thus, the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

That's presumption, and it not only presumes that this coach was analyzing the pictures in that way, it also presumes he was relaying that information to the sidelines. If the facts actually indicated that, Monte Barrow wouldn't be saying this violation didn't affect the scoreboard.

Ever heard of Facebook? Androids take terrible pictures too. Didn't stop my dad from videoing me crossing the graduation stage with one, and it didn't stop grainy pictures from ending up on social media. One of our assistant principals spends the entire game uploading pictures he's taken to Facebook; in fact, when I'm not listening to the radio broadcast, I'm normally finding out what the score is through his Facebook updates. A lot of these coaches are from other parts of the state, and I know they send stuff to their families back home, too.

That I can't say. Again, I don't know what kind of enforcement powers the UIL actually does and does not have. It's possible ordering wins to be vacated is the only way they can punish a school. But if it's not, it shouldn't have been the sentence of choice here.

Bingo.

And thousands upon thousands of pictures are taken by the fans at every PN-G football game week in and week out. The mere fact pictures are being taken doesn't affect the outcome of the game. What affects the outcome of the game is if those pictures are somehow influencing coaching decisions, and there's nothing in the facts here that indicates they were. So, if the pictures didn't contribute to the win, the win shouldn't be vacated.

No, it didn't, and that's an integral part of my whole point. As I understand them, the facts are that the video was being taken during the game but wasn't being used during the game. Ergo, it had no effect on the outcome or on the Crosby players.

I already knew that, but I don't see how that affects my argument. Even if he was videoing the game, it's only a violation of the rules if he uses the video "for coaching purposes." It's entirely possible that he intended to review the film for use after the game, but there's no evidence that he did, and the facts that everyone has stipulated to, as I understand them, clearly show that the video wasn't used for any coaching purpose during the game. Ergo, the violation didn't contribute to the win that was vacated, which brings me right back to my original point: the punishment doesn't fit the crime. The kids are getting penalized for a coach's mistake they had nothing to do with. Discipline him.