AggiesAreWe

LCM

Not affiliated with either school?? You sure post a lot on LC-M game threads, LC-M threads and not other teams in that district. In fact, the vast majority of your posts on this site are all LC-M related. Just sayin.

Only the schools Supt. vote. BC and LC-M could not vote. DEC are school supts. Not coaches.

The video that I have seen shows them in possession of the device. You are correct that it doesn't necessarily prove that LC-M was able to use it to their advantage. That is why the vote went the way it did. Not enough evidence to warrant a forfeit. I agree with that decision. But they were denying that they had the device when video proved they did. When BC asked for the device back, LC-M said they did not have it. Why would they not just give it back when asked? That is what this really is about. Integrity and ethics.

Added these schedules this morning: Pasadena, Pollok Central, San Augustine, Shelbyville, West Hardin, Hull-Daisetta and Burkeville That makes 72 schedules posted. Need 8. These are the schedules I need: Channelview CE King Newton Woodville Kirbyville Coldspring New Waverly Sabine Pass

I tend to agree for the most part. But, I have personally seen video and it clearly shows the player picking up the device off the field and giving it to his coach. Then the coach never attempts to give the device back to any game official. My eyesight may not be as good as it used to be. But I believe what I saw. You can take that for what it's worth. Also the vote was 3-3 for no forfeit. So there were some that thought the information given was enough to warrant a forfeiture. I don't deny that the coaches had their teams prepared.

Baytown Sterling 2202

Exactly. LC-M trying to play innocent of it all is where I have issue as well.

I think I stated that the LC-M head coach was cleared of all wrong doing. 6-0, 5-1, 4-2 is irrelevant. It was an assistant(s) that were involved. One will be going before the UIL. The video that I have personally seen shows the LC-M player finding the watch, picking it up and handing it to an LC-M assistant coach. Video also shows there was never an attempt by LC-M assistant coach to give the watch to a game official at anytime during the game. I am not privy to anyone emailing evidence.

Only one watch was lost. I spoke with three different game officials. All said no game official had their hands on any device at any time during that game. LC-M HC was cleared by DEC on the matter. Only the assistant will go before the UIL for any kind of punishment.

I'll put this out there. Weird things happen at Stallworth on Thursday nights with that Bay area officiating crews.

My question would be will the admins still opt United up to stay with West Brook?

IMO, it's definitely second fiddle to basketball. I've been to several BISD football games over the last 6-8 years. The support (attendance) is nowhere near the support that is shown at the basketball games that I have attended. And I am not talking about just when United plays West Brook in basketball. It's mostly all their basketball games. Of course, it doesn't help that football has been losing and basketball has 3 state championships of late. But obviously I am not a "Beaumonter". I would like to hear from those folks as well.

Splendora 1715 Liberty 757 Tarkington 530 Huntington 467 Anahuac 454 Buna 404 Palestine Westwood 396 Trinity 376 Crockett 371 Kountze 306 Newton 282 Shelbyville 236.5 Timpson 193 Joaquin 189 San Augustine 185 West Hardin 151 Sabine Pass 131 Evadale 118 Colmesneil 116

Lost it on the opening kickoff. Video (which I have personally seen) shows an LC-M player pick it up off the field and walk over to sideline and hand it to one of his coaches. Player may have thought he left it in locker room. Not sure he was a starter or not.

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.