PNG/rumors

[PlayActionPass]

18 hours ago, PN-G bamatex said:

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.

Naivete does not become you. 

[ST413]

19 hours ago, PN-G bamatex said:

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.

So you are saying that since you dont know the rule you are exempt...........tell that to the officer who gives you your next ticket.

[aki1994]

5 minutes ago, ST413 said:

So you are saying that since you dont know the rule you are exempt...........tell that to the officer who gives you your next ticket.

I have many times and it works. 

[Olballcoach1738]

Here's the thing.. png put themselves in a position by having the iPad in the first place, and went a step further having it out and up. Regardless of what they may or may not have used it for. It's not a good look. It's an even worse look when they decided to put a cabinet door up in the window to try and "block" the view. Which again, is not a good look. So you have an iPad, which you're not supposed to have, you have it out, and running, you decide to put a door up in the window to block the view of others. What do you expect will come of it? 

 

Also, had some other team done this to PNG, in a game that the other team won, all of you would be crying foul and cheering the fact you got the win back.. Unfortunately this time, it worked out against you. 

[NDNation]

27 minutes ago, ST413 said:

So you are saying that since you dont know the rule you are exempt...........tell that to the officer who gives you your next ticket.

I don't think anyone is on here saying that there wasn't an ipad. I think everyone understands that we broke a rule. There is NO PROOF that the coach was using it to cheat. Everybody assumes that, and has taken off with it and blown it up to every game we have ever been in, we've cheated. That is not true. We were made to forfeit a game due to having a device that is prohibited. The BH Coach even stated that pics are just of the device, not of any thing being recorded.

[Realville]

Officer pulls over man for running a stop sign.

Officer asks man “Do you know why I pulled you over?”

The man says no.

The Officer tells the man that he ran the last stop sign.

The man says well I Slowed Down!

The Officer ask the man to get out of his car. 

The man gets out of his car. 

The Officer begins to beat the man with his night stick.

The Officer ask the man while he’s beating him with his night stick “Do you want me to Slow Down or Stop?”

See the Difference?

STOP!!!

[outanup]

BH scouts walk by coaches booth... notices iPad leaning against window... Hey, you know that’s  not legal right? PNG coach... no reply. Scout leaves, comes back later and same situation. Arrogance. You can figure out the rest.

[badndn]

52 minutes ago, Olballcoach1738 said:

Here's the thing.. png put themselves in a position by having the iPad in the first place, and went a step further having it out and up. Regardless of what they may or may not have used it for. It's not a good look. It's an even worse look when they decided to put a cabinet door up in the window to try and "block" the view. Which again, is not a good look. So you have an iPad, which you're not supposed to have, you have it out, and running, you decide to put a door up in the window to block the view of others. What do you expect will come of it? 

 

[PlayActionPass]

57 minutes ago, Olballcoach1738 said:

Here's the thing.. png put themselves in a position by having the iPad in the first place, and went a step further having it out and up. Regardless of what they may or may not have used it for. It's not a good look. It's an even worse look when they decided to put a cabinet door up in the window to try and "block" the view. Which again, is not a good look. So you have an iPad, which you're not supposed to have, you have it out, and running, you decide to put a door up in the window to block the view of others. What do you expect will come of it? 

 

Also, had some other team done this to PNG, in a game that the other team won, all of you would be crying foul and cheering the fact you got the win back.. Unfortunately this time, it worked out against you. 

All of this is "evidence" that leads the "common" man to come to the conclusion that there was some level of impropriety and/or deception involved.

[badndn]

11 minutes ago, outanup said:

BH scouts walk by coaches booth... notices iPad leaning against window... Hey, you know that’s  not legal right? PNG coach... no reply. Scout leaves, comes back later and same situation. Arrogance. You can figure out the rest.

Agreed. But punish the arrogantcoach/coaches not the kids. Thats the bad part everytime something like this occurs the kids that put in the blood sweat and tears suffer for the arrogance of so called adults.

Either way its over. Moving on. Like I said earlier, gave up 40 ppg most of the year, then last Friday night against SF and clearly now for sure without an ipad around, gave up 7. Whatever we were or weren’t doing with the infamous ipad is wasn’t working! lol

[PlayActionPass]

10 minutes ago, badndn said:

Agreed. But punish the arrogantcoach/coaches not the kids. Thats the bad part everytime something like this occurs the kids that put in the blood sweat and tears suffer for the arrogance of so called adults.

Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on how you look at it, this is a TEAM game. When one player/coach is given a "penalty" the entire TEAM suffers. The coaches are the HEAD of the TEAM and therefore when they make a mistake, everybody receives the punishment.

[Tigers2010]

Dead horses beaten up and down this 27 page thread. Somebody call PETA

[outanup]

I’m with you concerning punishing the kids, unfortunately you don’t get to pick and choose on that... nor should anyone get to choose their own. The bottom line is , this is on Faircloth  .... when the dust settles , he will own it.

[PN-G bamatex]

1 hour ago, ST413 said:

So you are saying that since you dont know the rule you are exempt...........tell that to the officer who gives you your next ticket.

No, I'm saying that the punishment needs to fit the crime. The coach made an honest mistake and violated a rule. The manner in which he violated it did not contribute to the outcome of the game. Therefore, the coach should be disciplined, but the game shouldn't be forfeited. Punish the coach, not the kids.

[PN-G bamatex]

2 hours ago, PlayActionPass said:

Naivete does not become you. 

But condescension becomes you quite nicely.

[PlayActionPass]

4 minutes ago, PN-G bamatex said:

But condescension becomes you quite nicely.

Touche'

[RoschonsBigBro]

[CardinalBacker]

6 minutes ago, outanup said:

I’m with you concerning punishing the kids, unfortunately you don’t get to pick and choose on that... nor should anyone get to choose their own. The bottom line is , this is on Faircloth  .... when the dust settles , he will own it.

The question is, who's gonna be owning the coach's house?  

[Whoa]

10 minutes ago, PN-G bamatex said:

No, I'm saying that the punishment needs to fit the crime. The coach made an honest mistake and violated a rule. The manner in which he violated it did not contribute to the outcome of the game. Therefore, the coach should be disciplined, but the game shouldn't be forfeited. Punish the coach, not the kids.

What is an honest mistake? 

How do you know Fairclothes intent?

How do you know this was the first time they used the illegal device?

How do you know it didn't contribute to the outcome of the game?

 

 

 

[Tigers2010]

[Tigers2010]

[Tigers2010]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[SETX Football Lover]

5 minutes ago, Tigers2010 said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Copy and paste bro, copy and paste lol

[Tigers2010]

I tried!!! HAHA For some reason its is not working.... You see the two blank posts above. Come on man, I'm not a caveman.

[Tigers2010]

AHHHH Finally, let the likes rain upon me!!!!