Jump to content

PNG/rumors

CCbigfan

By CCbigfan
in High School Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 682
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

pakronos
pakronos

makes me wonder how long they been doing this thinking it was okay!! halftime adjustments my behind...ijs...

BHFAN
BHFAN

Elizabeth Warren just called and wants to give her .0000789%  Indian back due to this incident.

Bulldogpower
Bulldogpower

So to sum up these 23 pages here is a cliff notes version of what’s going on if you went ahead and skipped to the last page: PNG fans are going to defend the infraction cause it’s against their f

Posted Images

PN-G bamatex

PN-G bamatex

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, PlayActionPass said:

They already had all of the information prior to the meeting. They didn't go into the meeting blind. The facts are simple and the evidence is obvious. The parties involved (PNG) stipulated to the wrongful act of employing digital recording (picture taking) devices during the course of a contest. The only thing being contested is whether the information obtained from an illegal source was used during the course of the contest. However, the use of the device is violation enough to warrant forfeiture. 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Olballcoach1738

Olballcoach1738

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Tigers2010 said:

Idk if most are. I think people understand what happened. A middle school coach has an ipad in the press box. Whatever the intentions were, it cost them a win.

What's wrong with that defense? It helped OJ get away with double-murder.

I might be stupid here.. and perhaps I'm wrong. but since when do middle school coaches get on the headsets? I'm pretty positive 5a and 6a coaching staffs don't have their middle school coaches on headsets. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
outanup

outanup

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, NDNation said:

The point was, people posting any ole thing and not having a clue.

Just like on facebook. People posting we struggle during the first half, then come out all better the second, because of cheating. Not true.

Well if he’s taking pictures of how opposing defense line up with his offensive sets... and then at halftime comparing and adjusting... iPad was used for taking pics.... and then adjusting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tigers2010

Tigers2010

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Olballcoach1738 said:

I might be stupid here.. and perhaps I'm wrong. but since when do middle school coaches get on the headsets? I'm pretty positive 5a and 6a coaching staffs don't have their middle school coaches on headsets. 

You would be surprised. But, idk if he was a middle school or not. I don't think it made a ton of difference either way. Kids play the game and none of them coaches are that good anyway. It's PNG defense for crying out loud haha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RoschonsBigBro

RoschonsBigBro

Posted
Posted

In 2018 for this to be this big of an issue is really stupid. Arkansas has video feed for christ sake. 

In football, the smallest edge can make the difference between winning and losing. For many teams, that edge is the size of a tablet.

Many high school football teams in Arkansas have begun using sideline replay technology to conduct film analysis during a game.

“It’s unbelievable,” said Jeff Risner, offensive coordinator for Joe T. Robinson High School. “I mean, we always talk about, ‘the eye in the sky doesn’t lie.’”

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NDNation

NDNation

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, outanup said:

Well if he’s taking pictures of how opposing defense line up with his offensive sets... and then at halftime comparing and adjusting... iPad was used for taking pics.... and then adjusting.

But we didn't come out improved during the second half..lol

Here is the post off of All things Nederland: " I’m starting to wonder if they have done it to other games....they are struggling the first half then jump out the second half "

This person obviously has no clue what he's talking about. The games with Vidor, Dayton and Crosby were all about who had the ball last, We traded touchdowns the whole game. There was no struggling then jumping out ahead. But of course everybody jumped on board when he posted that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
show me the money

show me the money

Posted
Posted
2 hours 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.

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.

SMDH....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Olballcoach1738

Olballcoach1738

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Tigers2010 said:

You would be surprised. But, idk if he was a middle school or not. I don't think it made a ton of difference either way. Kids play the game and none of them coaches are that good anyway. It's PNG defense for crying out loud haha.

Good point! But one could argue that if a coach in direct line of communication with other coaches in box/field, has it in front of him with what appears to be the game on screen, they might be sharing some information. Again, could be wrong. Just the perception. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pride03

Pride03

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, PN-G bamatex said:

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.

Possible "punishments" are as follows...

1) Private reprimand; 2) Public reprimand; 3) Forfeiture; 4) Disqualification

With the lack of facts so much speculation, I agree with BamaTex that the punishment was too harsh. Plenty of schools have received far less for far worse. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ST413

ST413

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, TxHoops said:

I think everyone is missing the greater point here.  Those Farmville crops weren't going to water themselves!

You missed it too it wasn’t FarmVille he was playing it was his Farmers only dot com account he was checking in on!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
americasteam22

americasteam22

Posted
Posted

Who busted PNG, who voted against PNG, really doesn’t matter. I guess unless your BH according to post I’ve read. 

PNG broke the rules, PNG cannot choose their punishment for breaking rules. It doesn’t matter  if every team does it, PNG got busted and faces a punishment. 

The coaches broke the rules and now the kids face the punishment. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Member Statistics

    46,202
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    CHSFalcon
    Newest Member
    CHSFalcon
    Joined


×
×
  • Create New...