FB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[badgerwarhawk]

I guess I'm against the grain as well.  For some of the same reasons as bleed.  However do we really want to see the court system determining the winner of athletic contests?  I know I don't.  Suppose Plainfield prevails.  Wouldn't Fenwick have the ability to appeal?  Where does it end?  The ISHA has bylaws and all of the membership schools have agreed to play by them.  There is a bylaw that covers this situation.  If the outcome of that is unacceptable the membership schools have the ability to change those bylaws and that imo is the more appropriate route to take. 

[RoyalsFan]

My take on it is that the courts shouldn't be involved. I would like to see a special committee that would handle cases like this to review and make a final decision (no appeal, etc.). The only issue that would come under their review would be a case like this, where the final play of the game is ruled incorrectly (not anything like holding or pass interference, but an incorrect application of the rules). This rarely happens so it wouldn't be needed that often, and in this case I think it is quite clear that Fenwick should have been the winner if the rules were followed correctly.

[emma17]

Bleed and BW, what grain are you referring to that you're going against?
Are you referring to opinions you've seen in other places?

Down here in the flatlands I've seen some sports commentators weigh in strongly that the court should act in favor of Fenwick. However, I've seen others warn against it, including a HS coach.

[badgerwarhawk]

Yes, I guess I mostly am though there have been some posts in our forum. 

I just don't like the courts being involved in this and I think Royals idea of a committee to decide matters of this nature is a good one.  That is something that could be put into the bylaws and resolve the problem albeit for the future.   

[wesleydad]

If the coach has his team take the safety they win.  I have never heard of anyone doing what they did to end a game.  Should it have been called, probably not, but again, don't leave the decision up to the officials and you don't get screwed.  Bad coaching decision team loses. Sucks, but that is the way it goes.

[RoyalsFan]

I question whether intentional grounding should have been called in the first place. I'm not sure if the intentional grounding rule is different in high school, but here is the definition from the NFL rule book:

Intentional grounding will be called when a passer, facing an imminent loss of yardage due to pressure from the defense, throws a forward pass without a realistic chance of completion. 

I haven't seen the play, but I'm sure the quarterback was just throwing it to take time off the clock and wasn't facing a loss of yardage due to pressure from the defense. So going by the NFL definition, there shouldn't have been a flag thrown.

[emma17]

Saw this on Twitter: "The judge should put a Fenwick helmet and a Plainfield North helmet on the bench...put on the one of the team she decides for...Corso-style"

As for the play call, I fall into the same thought as thinking "you should have just taken a safety". 
However, what if the Fenwick coach really, really knows the rules?  The play he called, if ruled properly, is probably one of the best play calls I've seen made.  Just take the snap, wind up and throw as deep as you can- no risk of getting tackled before the end zone. 

[emma17]

Is there much difference btw UWPLT and UWOSH.

I'm sure there are different opinions.
I believe UWO is stronger at the line of scrimmage (both sides), better on defense, and less explosive on offense. They likely make fewer mistakes, forcing the opponent to beat them.   

I'd think UWO matches up against St. John's pretty well. 

[emma17]

Chicago Sun-Times ‏@Suntimes  10m10 minutes ago
BREAKING: Judge declines to overturn outcome of football game between Fenwick and Plainfield North after ref errs.

[USee]

I agree with the notion of a bad coaching decision. If he really, really knew the rules then throw it as high and as far out of bounds toward a receiver as you can. The clock stops when the ball hits the ground so same effect. Or turn around and throw it out the back of the endzone as high and as far as possible. Game over on a safety. I have seen this play one other time many years ago and the coach had his Receiver run a fly pattern and the QB throw it deep and out of bounds. Same effect.

I am glad the courts didn't unlock this Pandora's box.

[UWO Titan 78]

Oshkosh and Platteville differ in a few ways. Both teams want to be physical, but the Titans are the more stout team on defense. They also prefer a more methodical ground approach on offense. UWP has shown more balance this year, but UWO will really try tocontrol both lines of scrimmage and control the game on the ground. As most games do, this could come down to turnovers. If the turnover margin is equal, I like the Titans.

[KitchenSink]

I question whether intentional grounding should have been called in the first place. I'm not sure if the intentional grounding rule is different in high school, but here is the definition from the NFL rule book:

Intentional grounding will be called when a passer, facing an imminent loss of yardage due to pressure from the defense, throws a forward pass without a realistic chance of completion. 

I haven't seen the play, but I'm sure the quarterback was just throwing it to take time off the clock and wasn't facing a loss of yardage due to pressure from the defense. So going by the NFL definition, there shouldn't have been a flag thrown.

That's NFL. High school is different. All passes have to go towards a receiver except when spiking the ball off a direct snap.

[bleedpurple]

Bleed and BW, what grain are you referring to that you're going against?
Are you referring to opinions you've seen in other places?

Down here in the flatlands I've seen some sports commentators weigh in strongly that the court should act in favor of Fenwick. However, I've seen others warn against it, including a HS coach.

Maybe the grain was imagined, but it seemed to me there were decisive opinions in favor of changing the outcome and others more in the middle, understandably wanting justice for Fenwick but warning the dangers of going there. But subsequent posts have wiped out alleged grain. 

[KitchenSink]

If the coach has his team take the safety they win.  I have never heard of anyone doing what they did to end a game.  Should it have been called, probably not, but again, don't leave the decision up to the officials and you don't get screwed.  Bad coaching decision team loses. Sucks, but that is the way it goes.

The flag was thrown correctly - all passes in high school have to go towards an eligible receiver, except for spiking the ball to stop the clock.  The screwup was is the administration of the foul.

[emma17]

I agree with the notion of a bad coaching decision. If he really, really knew the rules then throw it as high and as far out of bounds toward a receiver as you can. The clock stops when the ball hits the ground so same effect. Or turn around and throw it out the back of the endzone as high and as far as possible. Game over on a safety. I have seen this play one other time many years ago and the coach had his Receiver run a fly pattern and the QB throw it deep and out of bounds. Same effect.

I am glad the courts didn't unlock this Pandora's box.

If he throws "toward a receiver" that means he's throwing toward a defender = risk. We've all seen passes intercepted that were intended to be thrown out of bounds.
If the refs rule properly, it's one of the safest game ending plays I can think of.