Jump to content

Central Heights vs. Woodville Game Thread/CH wins/Comments


WOSgrad

Recommended Posts

Guest Cool-Breeze
I am done watching high school basketball. TASO has yet to fix the problem so as long as the game continues to be tainted like this, I won't be attending anymore. I hate to blame refs because it sounds cheap. But it was ridiculous. This is not the NBA, it's high school basketball. We're trying to teach kids the right way to play and refs let them get away with too much. The refs were bad on both sides for the most part though, but they blew some key calls.

I am done with this basketball forum. This is my last post. Congrats CH on the big win and congrats Mr. Official for ruining the sport for me
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name="Cool-Breeze" post="959266" timestamp="1296614656"]
I am done watching high school basketball. TASO has yet to fix the problem so as long as the game continues to be tainted like this, I won't be attending anymore. I hate to blame refs because it sounds cheap. But it was ridiculous. This is not the NBA, it's high school basketball. We're trying to teach kids the right way to play and refs let them get away with too much. The refs were bad on both sides for the most part though, but they blew some key calls.

I am done with this basketball forum. This is my last post. Congrats CH on the big win and congrats Mr. Official for ruining the sport for me
[/quote]Relax, go to the fridge and get some blue bell....get a good nights sleep and wake refreshed tomorrow........thats what I try to do.... :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name="no-look" post="959282" timestamp="1296615084"]
[quote author=Cool-Breeze link=topic=79637.msg959266#msg959266 date=1296614656]
I am done watching high school basketball. TASO has yet to fix the problem so as long as the game continues to be tainted like this, I won't be attending anymore. I hate to blame refs because it sounds cheap. But it was ridiculous. This is not the NBA, it's high school basketball. We're trying to teach kids the right way to play and refs let them get away with too much. The refs were bad on both sides for the most part though, but they blew some key calls.

I am done with this basketball forum. This is my last post. Congrats CH on the big win and congrats Mr. Official for ruining the sport for me
[/quote]Relax, go to the fridge and get some blue bell....get a good nights sleep and wake refreshed tomorrow........thats what I try to do.... :)
[/quote] I am going to start calling u DR.NO-LOOK :D :D :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They need an accountability system. I wish they would implement one.  I didnt see the game, I dont know how the calls went, for CH or for Woodville or just plain bad.  But, there is nothing anyone can do about it.  They have all the power and basically own the game.  Until something is done, we will continue to get games that are called bad.
I could tell you horror stories from other websites, where officials blantantly kicked the coach out of the game.  The coach can hardly have a discussion with the official and he gets ejected.  Not even a discussion.  The coach and officials should have a working dialouge.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have watched several high school games this year, and I can't even describe to you how disgusted I am with refs. In the NBA, guys get away with a lot of stuff that is basic basketball; travel, carry, moving screen, etc. That has now trickled down into college and now high school. EastTexasBB, I couldn't agree with you more...for a change. Coaches can't have a discussion with the ref without the refs getting an attitude and trying to throw the coach out or tech him up. Cool-breeze, I'm like you...it's hard to even watch this game we all love. And I'm not making excuses for Woodville losing, I wasn't even there so props to CH with their win and most likely the district championship.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While there definetly needs to be an accountability system for basketball officials, from the information I gathered on last nights game, both teams shot an equal 19 FT's.  That is about as even as you can get.  I heard some more interesting facts about the game that would refute some previous comments as well but for sake of argument I will just leave them out.  I would think both teams shooting 19 FT's and the game on Woodvilles homecourt would speak volumes.  If we are not going to accept excuses when these two teams play at one place lets do the same at the other.  That is in all fairness.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The game can always be blamed on the refs however as bad as they may be it is the players who must decide the outcome of this game.  In this case,  Woodville was without their best ball handler Darrin Sells who fouled out with four minutes to play.  At that point, Woodville held the lead.  Over the next four minutes, the Eagles committed 5 turnovers, missed 6 of 9 shots from the floor and converted only 2 of 7 free throws.  Add this to Central converting 7 of 8 from the line and a huge three with 1:11 to play and you have a Woodville loss despite the referees.  Central outscored Woodville 14 to 8 over the final four minutes and earned the win.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you mentioned I heard that Sells made a huge mental error and picked up that charge with 4 minutes to go.  PG has got to be smarted than that.  He has got tot know you need him in there for ballhandling and protecting the lead than trying to score which I am guessing is when he picked up his 5th was on the way to the basket.  If they had the lead, just pull it out and be smart.  If you have the lead, you have them where YOU want them and can dictate what they do.  Evidentally Woodville didnt do that to close the game out.  That should put CH by themselves in 1st, and Woden in 2nd with Woodville because Woden has the win over them but they have the same amount of losses.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are always two sides to every story.  Trust me on this one.  Personally and socially.  I can understand both sides.  I was not there and did not see the charge/block?  I am just giving the opinions of some CH fans and how they saw the play.  They saw it as a charge. I dont know.  Either way, there should be an accountability system for the officials and the game cant be played over, so it is best to just go on and get ready for the next game.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member Statistics

    45,994
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    janaxad4
    Newest Member
    janaxad4
    Joined


  • Posts

    • If your point was to lie about me, you succeeded. Congratulations. You must feel like a winner, aka Harry Reid.
    • Read it all - good info - thanks
    • Two political opponents pointing to each other and calling each other a liar…..  Is like two roosters fighting  and then pointing to the other and calling him a chicken. 
    • Trump was indicted for his activities on January 6. He appealed the indictment to the District Court (trial court) and the way I read it, they pretty much said he has no immunity, period. So he appealed to the Circuit Court which is not a trial court, but is a constitutional court one step below the US Supreme Court. Both the District Court and the Circuit Court denied even reviewing the case. I believe they simply said that a former president has no such immunity. The US Supreme Court then took up the case on a constitutional basis. Remember at this point there has been no trial so no facts of the case have come out. It has been only appeals on the constitutionality of immunity. The Supreme Court ruling today said that the president has absolute immunity for constitutional authority (conclusive and preclusive).  What that means to me is, if it’s something the Constitution gives him the authority to do, he absolutely cannot have charges filed against him. An easy example that I can think of is the Constitution makes him the commander-in-chief of the military. So if a president authorizes the military to do something such as Reagan authorizing the bombing of Libya in retaliation for terrorist attacks, the president cannot be sued or held to criminal charges because some civilians in Libya got killed. That is his authority as commander-in-chief and protection of the country. The Supreme Court then ruled that the president has presumed official acts immunity. A presumption under law in a case such as this means that it is assumed that the person accused, such as a president, is not guilty. The presumption is that he followed the law. The presumption does allow however for the prosecution to try and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the presumption does not exist. The person accused does not have to prove anything. The president does not have to prove that he had immunity. The prosecution has to prove that more likely yes than no that he didn’t have immunity. So technically there’s an opening to prosecute but you start out with the presumption that the person accused is not guilty with nothing to prove. As an example, the president has wide authority in many areas including issuing some executive orders. Those are authorities as official acts. If the president was to do something like order the unjustified jailing of a political opponent in an upcoming election and order the opponent held in Gitmo to keep from campaigning, that would not be included under an official act immunity. So it is possible to overcome the presumption of immunity but it will take quite a bit of work.  The president has no immunity whatsoever that is outside of constitutional authority or an official act. As an example of the president gets drunk and manages to sneak past his Secret Service bodyguard. He gets in the car and drives DWI and kills someone. That is not covered under an official act so he could be held accountable for a homicide. So…. For constitutional authorities, the president has absolute immunity. For an official act, he has presumed immunity. Anything outside of a constitutional or official act, such as driving DWI, has no immunity. In this ruling the Supreme Court vacated the indictment because the District Court, and the Circuit Court did not even consider immunity. The Supreme Court did not clear Trump because at this point they have not even heard the evidence. All they issued was a constitutional ruling that the lower courts have to at least consider immunity under the rule that they just established. Therefore the case goes back to the prosecution to bring a case at the trial court level and try to prove that whatever Trump is accused of, it was not an official act. Certainly the DOJ could read this Supreme Court ruling and drop the case, saying that they cannot overcome immunity. I’m not going to hold my breath, waiting for the DOJ to come to that conclusion. Simply disagreeing with a president actions does not disprove immunity. I disagreed with some of the things that Biden did such as ordering vaccines for some workers. Some of that was appealed and the courts threw out some of those mandates, especially under OSHSA. I don’t think Biden could be prosecuted however for issuing an executive order to one of his federal agencies because that is probably covered under an official act immunity. Not liking it does not automatically qualified as a crime. Therefore…. Can the DOJ try to again get an indictment against Trump and try to prove in court that he is not covered by one of the immunities listed? Yes. The Supreme Court  has stated that under their ruling absolute immunity must be taken into consideration for a constitutional act and presumed immunity must be taken into consideration for an official act. Let’s just say that the DOJ pushed this case again and convince the trial court and the appeals court that Trump has no immunity and they get a criminal conviction. At their discretion, the Supreme Court can take this case up again since the trial would have been held and the Supreme Court could see how the lower courts came to their conclusion. The Supreme Court could agree that with the lower courts that there was no immunity and a conviction stands or they could say, y'all weren't paying attention to our ruling and they can throw the whole case out. If you don’t want to read all of that……  To date the ruling is, yes a former president has immunity from what he did in office and by law that must be taken into consideration under the rules that the Supreme Court just set. The rest will play out in the future. 
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...