tvc184

Deep pass to Nederland 46 End of 1, Silsbee 12-0

Silsbee goes on 4-5. Defense holding. 4-5/goal Incomplete Nederland ball at own 5

Return to Nederland 28 Ball tipped and intercepted at Nederland 42

At 3:48 in 1, Silsbee 12-0 after 2 point try is again no good

Silsbee mostly killing Nederland on short passes. 45 touchdown pass

Nederland return to own 36 moved to 19 for block in back. Almost 50 run up middle. Nederland goes at 4-1 but motion. 4-6 is intercepted at 10.

YouTube stream

Silsbee starts at own 23. About 25 yard pass with late hit. 30 touchdown called back for holding at about Nederland 16. 1 touchdown run. Try for 2 no good. 6-0 Silsbee

Good enough to “post”.

Nederland wins the toss and defers. Silsbee to receive.

I believe they have already lost this fight. Unless the Supreme Court makes a radical shift in previous rulings, this case is over. As soon as someone files an njunction, and I expect Texas to within a few hours, the case will end. it officially will not end obviously until it goes in the system but effectively the federal mandate will stop.

My theme song, Glory Days by Bruce Springsteen.

The article wraps up saying a statement by the prosecutor, “Make no mistake, we recognize that this case will be difficult to prosecute”. Ya’ think? Yes, charging someone with a homicide that they did not commit, definitely makes it difficult

That is one of the great things about speculation. In 3 quarters of play, WOS managed 130 yards of offense and no touchdowns. In that same time Nederland managed almost 300 yards and 2 touchdowns… but WOS was on the way back. WOS very well might have come back. We will never know… But it sure is great speculating isn’t it?

Always love the Nuremberg Code diatribe.

Hopefully Nederland will get a lot tougher test next week against Silsbee. According to the PA News, Austin had 1 yard of offense last night.

Do you have to administer a test? No. It seems rather silly to go through all the steps and then not asked for one.

I have no thoughts on it. All I know of the case is what was in the article.

According to what I read on the UIL website, the determining factor is the district rules committee. If out of conference like this game, it goes by the committee rules of the home team district. There was no automatic UIL rule on how to handle the situation and they turned it over to the local districts. Whether are the teams are 0-0, 1-0/0-1 depends on the 12 5A II committee decision that was in place already. According to the KLVI announcers, if the game was called in the second half, the score stands. I don’t know if that was just their belief or if they had looked up or had knowledge of the district rules.

Does the same team count the eight years that Obama continued the same policy? Were they peanut brains then or only after Trump took office? Obama took office almost 13 years ago. He could have ended it then completely at his discretion. So why out of the last 20 years, Obama could’ve ended it 13 years ago?

I believe the US Supreme Court case of Castle Rock v. Gonzalez has already settled that issue. In a 7-2 decision they said that you cannot sue a city or Police Department for failure to act unless there’s a specific law that requires that action. I believe an example would be under Texas law where almost every legal arrest is voluntary or discretionary by the police. There are almost no mandatory arrests however there are a couple such a violation of a protective order. A protective order which some people mistakenly call a restraining order, is an order by a judge telling someone not to approach somebody, speak with them, make threats, etc.. Usually it is used in situations such as domestic violence. Typically such an order will come after for example a man beats up his girlfriend. If a judge issued such a protective order and a police officer in Texas witness a violation of that order, it is a mandatory arrest. Where this happened the state law just like Texas, is an open carry state for rifles. There is no such thing as a mandatory arrest in that case because the rifle is legal. Even if it was not legal, there would need to be a law that says the police have to arrest everyone they see with a rifle. The lawsuit makes the accusation of a conspiracy. I believe for such a lawsuit to be successful they are going to have to prove that the police made a deal with certain people to carry rifles and go out and take care of certain individuals. I highly doubt that the police made some kind of a back room deal with people on the street. I think this is a deep pockets case. The lawsuit was filed in hopes that the city will simply settle out of court, even if the law exonerate them, to not have to pay for a lengthy court fight.

Amy time you think the world cannot get any crazier……

Who in here has ever said that Trump would be reinstated? We can read silly Internet rumors on all kinds of topics. I do not know a single person that has ever mentioned this in person or on any forum. In fact if I ask any of my friends about Trump being reinstated, to a person they would probably say… Huh?

It looks like the authors and editors are a couple of Asians, maybe a couple of people for the Middle Eastern or other cultures. It looks like some think tank organization 501(c)3 and has the goal of bringing people together and other lofty ideals.