Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, hitman009 said:

 

Do you really think BH, Crosby and other schools do not break the rules?? I have personally seen BH coaches coaching their kids in 7 on 7 after school and at half of tournaments... guess what, that is against UIL rules.... I have even seen a kid paid by the School board member cash at a Peso's. Handed the kid $200 and said "my wife is not comfortable with your family and you coming by the house to eat. Here.... go buy them something nice". Heck one Coach lost his job because of recruiting practices. So don't give the integrity speech and cheater speech when I don't know a school that totally obeys all UIL laws (many of which are stupid anyways). 

UGHHHHH OK

Posted
19 minutes ago, FrodoNDN said:

Actually funny....had a giggle there....but seriously, that is a great idea...

I actually seen it on a PNG friends Facebook page. I have to admit that I cheated by stealing the idea. Lol

Posted
6 hours ago, Olballcoach1738 said:

I might be stupid here.. and perhaps I'm wrong. but since when do middle school coaches get on the headsets?

Since the middle school coach had the ipad. lol

Posted

You can bet the bank this did not start the Crosby game, common sense tells you it has been going on all year and possibly previous years.  Cmon people what they just woke up on the  Crosby game.   Really, believe what you want...…...

Posted
8 minutes ago, jimbob82 said:

You can bet the bank this did not start the Crosby game, common sense tells you it has been going on all year and possibly previous years.  Cmon people what they just woke up on the  Crosby game.   Really, believe what you want...…...

And no telling what other schools have been doing this year and possibly others. But that's speculation and can't be proven. 

Posted
8 hours ago, NDNation said:

12news

"Westberg said the photos were only of the ipad being in the coaches' pressbox and not of PNG recording the game"

 

 

So the picture posted on here is not of the infamous ipad. Its of a monitor in the box showing the live feed as I expected. FAKE NEWS. 

This gives credence to BF saying it wasn’t utilized, just in the box. Take the punishment and move on now. 

Posted
11 minutes ago, NDNation said:

And no telling what other schools have been doing this year and possibly others. But that's speculation and can't be proven. 

You are exactly right. That’s all speculation what other schools have been doing. What PNG did is proven fact with photographic evidence. Own it and move on. 

Posted
20 minutes ago, CCRed said:

You are exactly right. That’s all speculation what other schools have been doing. What PNG did is proven fact with photographic evidence. Own it and move on. 

There is no evidence of PNG recording or using it. We are accused of having a device that's prohibited in the box. No proof we used it to cheat. That's what y'all made up on the board.

Posted
23 minutes ago, oldman said:

Sure looks like images of the game on the screen.   It is definitely  Crosby’s stadium.   

On a brighter note!!!

 

Good Luck to both teams this Friday

Monitors are allowed and they are allowed to watch the game live, in real time.

Posted

Whew! that was tough, how many pages was the hill is for real thread?

I can hear the announcers Friday night, 3rd and 2 Indians in the I pad formation a formation that they implemented this week seems to be working well for them, there it is again that 'screen' pass if they keep this up the Eagles are going to get 'screen burned', looks like the 'key' to this formation is to have a good interface between the coaches in the 'press any key box' relaying ....

Posted
18 hours ago, PN-G bamatex said:

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.

Naivete does not become you. 

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Member Statistics

    46,274
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    BlackTie
    Newest Member
    BlackTie
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...