Jump to content

21-3A District Meet Live Updates


Recommended Posts

Girls Discus

1. Beach      OF     '96 "03

2. Strickland  Silsbee '79 "07

3. Monk       HF      '79 "04

4. Merchant  HF     '77 "01

5. Wilson      HJ      '75 "10

6. Shepherd  BC      '71 "11

Girls Pole Vault

1. Block       OF      '8

2. Bishop      BC      '6

3. Jannise     HF      '6

4. Strahan    BC      '6

5. Drinkard    HJ      '6

6. Louviere  Silsbee  '6

Boys  High Jump

1. Reynolds    BC    '6 "4

2. Evans        OF    '6 "4

3. Bell            HF    '6 "3

4. Francis       WOS  '6 "2

5. Porter       Silsbee '6 "2

6. Roberts      WOS   '6 "0

Is this a tie for 1st or is there a tie breaker that gave BC the win?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Girls Discus

1. Beach      OF     '96 "03

2. Strickland  Silsbee '79 "07

3. Monk       HF      '79 "04

4. Merchant  HF     '77 "01

5. Wilson      HJ      '75 "10

6. Shepherd  BC      '71 "11

Girls Pole Vault

1. Block       OF      '8

2. Bishop      BC      '6

3. Jannise     HF      '6

4. Strahan    BC      '6

5. Drinkard    HJ      '6

6. Louviere  Silsbee  '6

Boys  High Jump

1. Reynolds     BC    '6 "4

2. Evans         OF    '6 "4

3. Bell            HF    '6 "3

4. Francis       WOS  '6 "2

5. Porter       Silsbee '6 "2

6. Roberts      WOS   '6 "0

Is this a tie for 1st or is there a tie breaker that gave BC the win?

No. Reynolds gets the 1st because of less jumps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are the point totals thru all field events and the 3200:

Girls

Silsbee      46 1/2

BC            40

HF            36

OF            35 1/2

WOS        28

HJ            20

Boys

WOS      85  WOW!!!

BC        48

OF        35

HF        26

Silsbee  21

HJ        2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aggie,

Don't you think that WOS is having a great track meet so far

They are having a tremendous meet. I for one did not realize how good a field event team they turned out to be. I knew they had jumpers, but didn't realize they had the others. They won this meet Tuesday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Girls 100 meters

1. Danyalle Thomas     WOS    12.75

2. Casandra Hearvy    Silsbee   13.00

3. Janica Myers        Silsbee    13.06

4. Kristen Walters     Silsbee    13.18

5. Katy Heiman         HF          13.30

6. Megan Laday        HF          13.40

Boys 100 meters

1. Trey Franks      WOS    10.52

2. Jeremy Johnson  Silsbee 10.87

3. Chris Barnes      Silsbee  10.97

4. Mark Roberts      WOS    11.30

5. Dorian Turk       Silsbee   11.43

6. Austin Simmons  HF        11.53

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member Statistics

    46,206
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    Ceb2000
    Newest Member
    Ceb2000
    Joined



  • Posts

    • It’s behind a paywall but here’s Baytown Sun’s story on it.  It was reported on in other papers statewide so if you search by the date I think you’ll find other stories on it. UIL strengthens student transfer rules By Ron McDowell [email protected] Oct 18, 2024   In order to maintain a level playing field for all member schools, the University Interscholastic League strengthened rules regarding transfer student eligibility at its most recent meeting in Austin. Every year thousands of students transfer schools in the state of Texas. A student’s ability to participate in UIL sanctioned activities may be limited base on the reasons for the transfer. A change in family status, work transfers, enrollment in an academic magnet program, or a move across town, receive scrutiny, but only rarely does one of these reasons result in the loss of eligibility. The only reason to automatically cause the loss of participation eligibility is a transfer for athletic purposes. The current rule, which has been in place since 1981, does not require a Previous Athletic Participation Form (PAPFs) to be submitted if the student-athlete does not participate in a varsity level sport during the first year of enrollment. There has been growing concern among some member schools, that other members are breaking the current rule and creating “super teams” with new transfer enrollees, and that the UIL is not doing enough to police, what appear to be, the inordinate number of transfers among high school athletes. To mitigate these concerns, the UIL approved a proposal to expand the power of the State Executive Committee (SEC) and allow it to investigate schools based upon the number of PAPFs submitted. Schools that submit an inordinate number of PAPFs would face heightened scrutiny and possible public reprimand and future sanctions. The UIL has also changed the requirements for PAPF submission, mandating that the form be submitted before a grade 9-12 transfer student may participate at any level of school athletics. This is a marked departure from the current policy which encourages schools not to complete PAPFs for students who transfer in, if the school believes that the student will not play a varsity sport in the first year the student is enrolled at the new school. Some critics of the current system think that the change doesn’t go far enough. Speaking on background, one local school district source suggested that there should be an automatic year wait for transfer students due to the number of loopholes in the waiver process. “If a student transfers, it should be a year out of competition automatically,” the source said. In addition, the UIL also approved a proposal that gives the SEC the power to appoint an independent administrator to oversee the conduct of the local District Executive Committee (DEC) if it is determined that the DEC is not consistently enforcing the rules of the governing body. The change is significant since all appeals that a school brings, starts and usually ends with the DEC. That includes the determination of transfer student eligibility. It is believed that with the implementation of this change, schools in a UIL district will be less likely to face retribution from the DEC chair and other members. The policy changes will go into effect, Aug. 1, 2025 This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up  
    • I was hoping WOS was going to win. To get another chance to redeem ourself. Silsbee did not look good in that game and has not played consistent during the season. Hopefully against La Vega they will play 4quarters of football
    • This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up   GCCISD paid a firm called PASA to compile this report ahead of them closing/consolidating some schools and redrawing attendance zones.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...