AggiesAreWe

I cannot fault BC for loosing the device. When they realized one was missing, they then asked for it back. That's where LC-M dropped the ball in denying they even had the device even though game film afterwards showed they did indeed have it. It's an ethics thing. Looks bad on LC-M part in claiming innocence of it all. BC is not being petty at all in this instance.

I heard the same thing. Probably pretty basic. But still, the timing is in question.

BC uses electronic wristbands or "watches". OC has a tablet and sends play to those devices. The offensive players wear these watch devices on their wrists. That was what was found on the field by an LC-M player and given to one of his coaches.

I can see that side of it. But keep this in mind: The coach or coaches would have to know the terminology that BC uses for their play calling unless it's very basic terminology due to being high school players. Also, I am told the Offensive Co. doesn't send in play from tablet until just a few seconds before snap. That would be very difficult to get your defense ready for the play even if known right before the snap. It's very quick in real time. Now I am not denying that some kind of advantage could have taken place. It just depends on how basic BC was with their terms and how quickly LC-M could pick up on it.

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

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.

Correct. I agree. No forfeit was warranted.

HUDL film of the game. From what I was told it showed evidence of what was voted on. I'll explain in my post with the details that is coming.

When I get the green light, I will give the details.

100% agree.

I got text of the actual vote. Who voted for. Who voted against. 3-3 vote results in no forfeiture of game. But, an LC-M assistant coach will get a one game suspension. LC-M AD/HC will not receive any punishment but the program will likely receive a public reprimand. As for evidence, there was video evidence. IMO, a forfeit was not warranted in this situation.

Was not unanimous. Vote was 3-3. BC and LC-M did not vote.

I know all the details. Was asked to keep it off the site until today's 10-4A DI Supt. meeting was over and an official decision was made. I have been told the vote and the decision. Will post the details very soon.

The Barbers Hill QB has a father that is a high school coach. Offensive Co. and QB coach. Quite sure coaching wasn't that QB's problem. Personally, from what I have seen, WO-S talent level has dropped some. Not a drastic drop, but one would have to think it has dropped if only due to the enrollment that has dropped over there the last 10 years. Just my perspective.

North Shore 4153 Lumberton 1197

I have posted Atascocita, Kingwood numbers. Here's the link: [Hidden Content]

Why is that a surprise? Montgomery has two high schools. Nederland has just one.

Decided to go with these two games: Thursday Garrison at Joaquin Friday Colmesneil at West Hardin Get me some small school action. 2A DI and 2A DII

I'll correct. It's 1548.

Already posted that number.

Nederland snapshot number: 1548

Nederland 1548

I agree. Cook for Huffman should be in the convo. But if I had to make one single choice, I would go with what those three HC's (neither was HJ's HC) stated about #1 for HJ. They are the ones who have to coach against him.

That function is available here to.