PNG/rumors

[PlayActionPass]

7 minutes ago, PN-G bamatex said:

And thousands upon thousands of pictures are taken by the fans at every PN-G football game week in and week out. The mere fact pictures are being taken doesn't affect the outcome of the game. What affects the outcome of the game is if those pictures are somehow influencing coaching decisions, and there's nothing in the facts here that indicates they were. So, if the pictures didn't contribute to the win, the win shouldn't be vacated.

The problem with this argument is, the pitcures taken by fans are not being analyzed by coaches.

If coaches are taking pictures of the opposing defense, then they know beyond a shadow of a doubt where they are lining up and where to attack them.

[Cougar14.2]

4 minutes ago, PN-G bamatex said:

No, it didn't, and that's an integral part of my whole point. As I understand them, the facts are that the video was being taken during the game but wasn't being used during the game. Ergo, it had no effect on the outcome or on the Crosby players.

Obviously the majority of the coaches in the district didn't feel that way. Westeberg also voted against two of our transfers a couple of years back so he distributes evenly. The simple question is if you already have the game recorded from three different camera angles why would you need to record or take pictures of anything during the game for use afterwards? Ipads take garbage pictures and videos from that distance compared to the shots you get from the standard camera angles, any of which you can freeze to get the same picture you took with the Ipad after the game. For no other reason would you need an ipad in the press box for anything other than viewing something prior to the allotted time. There's little to no chance Faircloth doesn't know that rule exist and with that being said he wouldn't allow it to be broken if he didn't think it helped.  

[PN-G bamatex]

3 minutes ago, NDNation said:

I'm wondering if there were other avenues of punishment on the table.

That I can't say. Again, I don't know what kind of enforcement powers the UIL actually does and does not have. It's possible ordering wins to be vacated is the only way they can punish a school. But if it's not, it shouldn't have been the sentence of choice here.

[PN-G bamatex]

4 minutes ago, Cougar14.2 said:

Obviously the majority of the coaches in the district didn't feel that way. Westeberg also voted against two of our transfers a couple of years back so he distributes evenly. The simple question is if you already have the game recorded from three different camera angles why would you need to record or take pictures of anything during the game for use afterwards? Ipads take garbage pictures and videos from that distance compared to the shots you get from the standard camera angles, any of which you can freeze to get the same picture you took with the Ipad after the game. For no other reason would you need an ipad in the press box for anything other than viewing something prior to the allotted time. There's little to no chance Faircloth doesn't know that rule exist and with that being said he wouldn't allow it to be broken if he didn't think it helped.  

Ever heard of Facebook?

Androids take terrible pictures too. Didn't stop my dad from videoing me crossing the graduation stage with one, and it didn't stop grainy pictures from ending up on social media. One of our assistant principals spends the entire game uploading pictures he's taken to Facebook; in fact, when I'm not listening to the radio broadcast, I'm normally finding out what the score is through his Facebook updates. A lot of these coaches are from other parts of the state, and I know they send stuff to their families back home, too.

[PN-G bamatex]

7 minutes ago, PlayActionPass said:

The problem with this argument is, the pitcures taken by fans are not being analyzed by coaches.

If coaches are taking pictures of the opposing defense, then they know beyond a shadow of a doubt where they are lining up and where to attack them.

That's presumption, and it not only presumes that this coach was analyzing the pictures in that way, it also presumes he was relaying that information to the sidelines. If the facts actually indicated that, Monte Barrow wouldn't be saying this violation didn't affect the scoreboard.

[CCRed]

16 minutes ago, PlayActionPass said:

Assistant Superintendent Julie Gauthier blamed the violation, which occurred during the Indians’ 48-45 win over Crosby on Oct. 12, on a lack of understanding of the specific rule.

“One of our coaches who didn’t know the rule had the iPad propped against the glass in the press box taking photos,” Gauthier said.

This is from the Enterprise article.

This tells me the violation was deliberate and they were gaining an advantage.

Now who knew the rule and who didn't is debatable. And the fact that Faircloth was aware of the violation is also debatable.

However, he is ultimately responsible for the actions of his coaches. 

so.........

If they are claiming they didn’t “understand” the rule, then they probably didn’t “understand” the rule in all of their previous games. 

[PABorn]

20 minutes ago, PN-G bamatex said:

I already knew that, but I don't see how that affects my argument. Even if he was videoing the game, it's only a violation of the rules if he uses the video "for coaching purposes." It's entirely possible that he intended to review the film for use after the game, but there's no evidence that he did, and the facts that everyone has stipulated to, as I understand them, clearly show that the video wasn't used for any coaching purpose during the game. Ergo, the violation didn't contribute to the win that was vacated, which brings me right back to my original point: the punishment doesn't fit the crime. The kids are getting penalized for a coach's mistake they had nothing to do with. Discipline him.

Understood and agreed. As long as it wasn't used for in game adjustments. With that said, Faircloth is quoted in the Port Arthur news saying the iPad wasn't being used to video the game. 

[png9mon]

1 hour ago, bulldawg64 said:

Just do not do it period all solved! 

How do you VERIFY it's just not done?

[prepballfan]

23 minutes ago, Cougar14.2 said:

Well, even with this being Crosby's worst season in nearly a decade and PNG having their best player ever they still felt the need to cheat to secure a 3 point victory. You almost have to be sure they cheated to get the last 3 point victory in bi-district last year also. I guess when you're a mediocre coach before RJ shows up you have to do everything you can to maximize your time with him? If you want to argue that point just look at the one year Crosby loses their qb and doesn't have a stud backup, you go from beating Manvel to losing to BH. I would imagine the coaches that are still here figuring out how they're going to pay their mortgages after the season have a lot more to do with the current situation though.  

Luckily, Westeberg found a way to help to mitigate future arse whippings and decided to snitch on something PNG has probably been doing for a long time. Otherwise Crosby almost certainly misses the playoffs for the first time in 15 years. With us not being able to get anything from the qb position and Lee getting their qb back it's still highly possible that we go 0-2 but I'm hoping these seniors and this staff can find a way to go be Code Red again for at least a few more games. Crosby has been on life support since two series into the Vidor game and thanks to a Bush league move by the honor, pride, tradition, deceit school they haven't pulled the plug on us yet.   

I hesitate to say anything to you considering all that happened in Crosby.Nvm Ill leave it alone. 

[PlayActionPass]

9 minutes ago, PN-G bamatex said:

That's presumption, and it not only presumes that this coach was analyzing the pictures in that way, it also presumes he was relaying that information to the sidelines. If the facts actually indicated that, Monte Barrow wouldn't be saying this violation didn't affect the scoreboard.

And you presume that he was just taking some general aerial shots for his scrapbook.

Dude, why else would a coach take pictures of a football game from the press box unless he was going to look at them and analyze them and pass on that information to coaches calling the offense or the defense? 

[NDNation]

10 minutes ago, PN-G bamatex said:

That's presumption, and it not only presumes that this coach was analyzing the pictures in that way, it also presumes he was relaying that information to the sidelines. If the facts actually indicated that, Monte Barrow wouldn't be saying this violation didn't affect the scoreboard.

12news

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

 

 

[outanup]

4 minutes ago, PlayActionPass said:

And you presume that he was just taking some general aerial shots for his scrapbook.

Dude, why else would a coach take pictures of a football game from the press box unless he was going to look at them and analyze them and pass on that information to coaches calling the offense or the defense? 

With all he’s got to do.... he’s stopping to take photos... for his scrapbook I’m sure.

[PN-G bamatex]

2 hours ago, PlayActionPass said:

And you presume that he was just taking some general aerial shots for his scrapbook.

Dude, why else would a coach take pictures of a football game from the press box unless he was going to look at them and analyze them and pass on that information to coaches calling the offense or the defense? 

No, I didn’t presume anything. I'm merely pointing out that the facts that were stipulated to by all of the parties involved don't include what you're arguing.

Monte Barrow, one of the fact-finders who voted on this and the head coach of PN-G's arch rival, explicitly stated that the infraction had no effect on the outcome of a close game that came down to the final possession. If the facts were such that the coach taking the pictures was using them in a way that affected the outcome of the game, he wouldn't be saying that.

My guess is that this coach was taking the pictures for use after the game during weekly practices. If true, that's a violation, to be sure, but not one that affected the outcome of the Crosby game. Thus, the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

[3rdandlong]

20 minutes ago, PN-G bamatex said:

No, it didn't, and that's an integral part of my whole point. As I understand them, the facts are that the video was being taken during the game but wasn't being used during the game. Ergo, it had no effect on the outcome or on the Crosby players.

Ok so it wasn’t being used, but I guess someone thought it was ?

[Clueless]

Almost 22 pages of crying. Geez

[CCRed]

26 minutes ago, PN-G bamatex said:

That's presumption, and it not only presumes that this coach was analyzing the pictures in that way, it also presumes he was relaying that information to the sidelines. If the facts actually indicated that, Monte Barrow wouldn't be saying this violation didn't affect the scoreboard.

Humble ISD will not allow umbrellas inside their stadium. The next time you go over there and it is raining, take an umbrella with you. Then you can stand at the gate and argue with security that they are “presuming” you are going to use it. Tell them you will just set it beside you. See how far that gets you. 

[PABorn]

15 minutes ago, NDNation said:

I'm wondering if there were other avenues of punishment on the table.

Everybody is jumping on the bandwagon, but I think deep down they know it didn't affect the game.

If In fact the videos were being used to analyze in game formations the it hands down affected the game. This game came down to seconds on the clock. It can be argued that the advantage of being able to do that directly affected the outcome. If this is true I agree that they should have to forfeit the win. Now as for other games I don't think it affected as much because they weren't close. 

[PN-G bamatex]

4 minutes ago, CCRed said:

Humble ISD will not allow umbrellas inside their stadium. The next time you go over there and it is raining, take an umbrella with you. Then you can stand at the gate and argue with security that they are “presuming” you are going to use it. Tell them you will just set it beside you. See hat fat that gets you. 

If Humble ISD policy says that the umbrella isn't allowed "for rain-deflecting purposes," like the NCAA rules say video equipment isn't allowed "for coaching purposes," I might make that argument.

[NDNation]

4 minutes ago, PABorn said:

If In fact the videos were being used to analyze in game formations the it hands down affected the game. This game came down to seconds on the clock. It can be argued that the advantage of being able to do that directly affected the outcome. If this is true I agree that they should have to forfeit the win. Now as for other games I don't think it affected as much because they weren't close. 

Not close? Have you seen the other games? Both Dayton and Vidor were down to the wire.

[PlayActionPass]

5 minutes ago, PN-G bamatex said:

No, I don't presume anything. I'm merely pointing out that the facts that were stipulated to by all of the parties involved don't include what you're arguing.

Monte Barrow, one of the fact-finders who voted on this and the head coach of PN-G's arch rival, explicitly stated that the infraction had no effect on the outcome of a close game that came down to the final possession. If the facts were such that the coach taking the pictures was using them in a way that affected the outcome of the game, he wouldn't be saying that.

Ok, sure.

Maybe Monte doesn't want to give any more ammunition to PNG prior to them playing in two weeks.

Everybody went into that meeting already knowing what the vote was going to be, Coaches  talk to each other.

Those quotes mean nothing, because 3 other coaches (5 if you count BH and Crosby) felt differently. 

[PN-G bamatex]

4 minutes ago, PlayActionPass said:

Ok, sure.

Maybe Monte doesn't want to give any more ammunition to PNG prior to them playing in two weeks.

Everybody went into that meeting already knowing what the vote was going to be, Coaches  talk to each other.

Those quotes mean nothing, because 3 other coaches (5 if you count BH and Crosby) felt differently. 

On the contrary, they mean everything on appeal. Just like polling jurors can make a huge difference on appeal.

[Blockdownandkickout!]

[PlayActionPass]

5 minutes ago, PN-G bamatex said:

On the contrary, they mean everything on appeal. Just like polling jurors can make a huge difference on appeal.

I'm thing BF might want to hold off on an appeal, some new and damaging information might come to light.

That appeal process can get a little sticky when you start interviewing past coaches and what goes on during a normal Friday night in the press box.

[NDNation]

9 minutes ago, CCRed said:

Humble ISD will not allow umbrellas inside their stadium. The next time you go over there and it is raining, take an umbrella with you. Then you can stand at the gate and argue with security that they are “presuming” you are going to use it. Tell them you will just set it beside you. See hat fat that gets you. 

GCCISD doesn't allow backpacks, I talked my way in with one.

[CCRed]

9 minutes ago, PN-G bamatex said:

If Humble ISD policy says that the umbrella isn't allowed "for rain-deflecting purposes," like the NCAA rules say video equipment isn't allowed "for coaching purposes," I might make that argument.

Your response says it all.