ref2 said:

Come join us and show us how it’s done

Click to expand...

Rewatch that Morris vs Joliet catholic game and you tell me… trying to soften the woodshed beaten by jca as much as you guys could I see!

DeanOfSelection said:

Nairobi Allen began my indoctrination into MC football. I can still see him breaking some nice runs at Marist 6A round 2 in '88 and of course the long TD run in the final vs Flyer.

Click to expand...

This conversation is triggering my PTSD.

Besides the end of the SF-Provi game and a called fumble after forward progress had stopped during the LWW-Batavia game, I think the refs have done a phenomenal job this season. Obviously you can nitpick, but I think all things considered it's been a great year

Edit: on my personal observations at least

4Afan said:

In theory, the defense could commit a penalty such as pass interference on the last play of the game just to end the game and get the win, which is why it can't end on defensive penalty.

The offense, however, should not be rewarded with an additional play should they commit a penalty.

It's the same across all levels of football.

Click to expand...

Okay good to know appreciate it

What if LA does the impossible and wins tonight and next week? Does that make the LA QB the MVP?

bmlaken said:

Do you happen to know the rationale behind this? Just curious cause I think this is different than in the NFL

Click to expand...

In theory, the defense could commit a penalty such as pass interference on the last play of the game just to end the game and get the win, which is why it can't end on defensive penalty.

The offense, however, should not be rewarded with an additional play should they commit a penalty.

It's the same across all levels of football.

RockSoup said:

Congratulations Mt. Carmel. Impressive.

Click to expand...

Nice of you to say .... thanks.

good_nocall said:

You're welcome just didn't want this thread to turn into a ref bash when it wouldn't have been justified.

FWIW, I had no rooting interest in the game. My son and I were just bouncing around NFHS and caught the last 7 minutes of the game.

Click to expand...

Yeah same! Frankly I didn’t mind it cause felt like they shouldn’t have had the play to begin with with the second getting added back to the clock just thought it was crazy

doctor_d said:

You won 42-7, right?

Click to expand...

It’s not point!!!

ref2 said:

Come join us and show us how it’s done

Click to expand...

I’m not too biased enough…

brucealmighy said:

Come on. They have plenty of talent on that roster. He is a great player but others are performing as well with less talent around them.

Click to expand...

I get your point but I look at it this way:
1) the team’s running game only works because he is such a dynamic threat as a runner. The game he missed and when he first came back from injury and was seemingly not as aggressive with his runs then the ground game disappeared.
2) the team defense has been torched several games this season putting the
Pressure to score on virtually every possession squarely on the QB’s shoulders.
3) there has to be an enormous amount of pressure to win at Mt.Carmel yet the qb performs as though he thrives under that pressure.
I totally get that there are other great players on teams that would be ordinary without them.
But Mt. Carmel love them or hate them, is likely a top 5 team in the state out of 500 programs this year and the qb is the reason that is so.

You're welcome just didn't want this thread to turn into a ref bash when it wouldn't have been justified.

FWIW, I had no rooting interest in the game. My son and I were just bouncing around NFHS and caught the last 7 minutes of the game.

4Afan said:

Game cannot end on a defensive penalty, but it can end on an offensive penalty. The penalty was accepted, but there was no time on the clock.

Click to expand...

Do you happen to know the rationale behind this? Just curious cause I think this is different than in the NFL

good_nocall said:

It could have been 42 and if so I apologize for the confusion. The kid ran straight down the middle of the field which I think is where you can see 42 until the ball is released and then he runs over to where the play finished.

If the NFHS video or another presnap video becomes available, somebody please link and I can mark up the problem with the formation.

Click to expand...

Yeah agreed definitely a penalty. Appreciate the insight we were confused

Silver Rain said:

No. But Rita has a good bench. This year was predetermined, preordained.

Click to expand...

Congratulations Mt. Carmel. Impressive.

bmlaken said:

You can’t see the formation in this video but assume you’re talking 42 in which case if he was covered definitely this was the caseVideo

Click to expand...

It could have been 42 and if so I apologize for the confusion. The kid ran straight down the middle of the field which I think is where you can see 42 until the ball is released and then he runs over to where the play finished.

If the NFHS video or another presnap video becomes available, somebody please link and I can mark up the problem with the formation.

bmlaken said:

Do you understand or anyone else why there would not be an untimed down then since the penalty was accepted? I think I’ve heard that it’s correct that it’s not just would like to know what rule specifies that

Click to expand...

Game cannot end on a defensive penalty, but it can end on an offensive penalty. The penalty was accepted, but there was no time on the clock.

Chocked on it.

good_nocall said:

#22 was lined up as a tight end (three point stance) on Unity's right side of the line. You also had trips in a bunch to the far right, with the middle of the bunch lined up on the ball. Not sure what his number was because i was focused on if 22 was actually going to pass protect, which he did not. The guy on the ball to the outside "covers" #22 in that case, making #22 ineligible by formation.

Click to expand...

Do you understand or anyone else why there would not be an untimed down then since the penalty was accepted? I think I’ve heard that it’s correct that it’s not just would like to know what rule specifies that

RockSoup said:

So today, can the St. Rita D mitigate, to an extent, the Mt. Carmel O explosiveness?
Can the St. Rita O effectively force the Mt. Carmel D to cover the whole field on each down mitigating the size and speed advantage of Mt. Carmel’s front 7?
Can the St. Rita O tactically deploy major misdirection plays on any down and at any spot on the field to steal field position and/or score 6?

Click to expand...

No. But Rita has a good bench. This year was predetermined, preordained.

LakeCtyNewt said:

Their FB rushed for 227 yards and two touchdowns today so I think they didn’t missed him too much.

Click to expand...

Today, maybe not. If it were next week, for sure. Missing the extra points is what did them in today. Enough about CG, at least from me. Woulda, coulda. It’s Geneva’s turn.

Come join us and show us how it’s done

rjjtwest said:

With all due respect but you guy’s need to keep it real and get your head out thee ol’ bum!

Click to expand...

You won 42-7, right?

good_nocall said:

#22 was lined up as a tight end (three point stance) on Unity's right side of the line. You also had trips in a bunch to the far right, with the middle of the bunch lined up on the ball. Not sure what his number was because i was focused on if 22 was actually going to pass protect, which he did not. The guy on the ball to the outside "covers" #22 in that case, making #22 ineligible by formation.

Click to expand...

You can’t see the formation in this video but assume you’re talking 42 in which case if he was covered definitely this was the caseVideo