St Edmond Question

[ghost80]

Why yes it is.

O'Tool was flagged for a late hit out of bounds which was 15 yds but because it was on like a 1st and 17 or something longer like that, the result of the play wasn't a 1st down. I believe his second penalty did give MNW a 1st down though.

His second one was helmet-to-helmet as he dove with his head down as the ball carrier was falling down. T.J. dove late and it wasn't really malicious, just poor tackling form and poorly timed. The far sideline official threw the flag after the play was over.

I didn't have a great look on the late hit, but I don't disagree with either call. I don't think they were unsportsmanlike either. If he was ejected from the game then perhaps that really WAS an error on the officiating crew and maybe that's why SE appealed, IF that is in fact what happened.

To be honest, I really don't know anything about that other than what people in this thread are speculating, but I do know that T.J. wasn't assessed two unsportsmanlike penalties.

Second offense happened in the 4th quarter. IF it was the product of poor form maybe OToole is spending too much time on the field and was tired. But in the end that shouldn't matter relative to the ejection since technically the rule is about on field safety (including the offender) and there is no distinction between intentional and unintentional.

 

[cidhawkeye]

Would there be video that the boys in Boone could watch that they could determine whether it was flagrant or not? I have been at games where an official lost his cool and made a poor judgement so it can happen. It sounds like there is doubt in this case and I would be surprised that the fouls were flagrant. If a rule was misinterpreted or misapplied than the boys in Boone should be involved.

 

[Saints85]

Well the article in today's paper has Coach Tighe quoted as it was a "misinterpretation." That tells me that they did not deem both situations as "flagrant." Like coaches, players, and fans, the officials get it wrong at times. They are human. So he was removed from a game, at a critical time - from what I understand - and the team went on to lose. He gets to play this week, because they misinterpreted the rules and he should have NOT been removed last week. From an outsider, I think it has all evened out. He was held to 32 yards on 20 carries, sounds like the Gaels have plenty to worry about besides whether he plays or not. If you are a fan or parent of a future opponent, figure out how Manson held him in check, and do that instead of worrying if he is going to play or not.

 

[Spook 78]

poor tackling form thunder? seriously? I know you are aware of how many camps he attended this past summer. I am not putting my neck on the line in saying that he has more coaching, training and instruction information then any other athlete on the field at that time. And yet he did this.
And Saints, I wouldn't be expecting to many apologies coming to a player who tackles out of bounds and spears people.

 

[cidhawkeye]

poor tackling form thunder? seriously? I know you are aware of how many camps he attended this past summer. I am not putting my neck on the line in saying that he has more coaching, training and instruction information then any other athlete on the field at that time. And yet he did this.
And Saints, I wouldn't be expecting to many apologies coming to a player who tackles out of bounds and spears people.

So the fact the state admitted one of their own made a mistake, think about that, the state admitted a mistake, doesn't lend some doubt as to the severity of the fouls? I didn't see the play or video of it so I can't pass an opinion on that. But if the state overturned their own, it does create that doubt. How bad were the plays?

 

[DavenportHawk8]

Davenport,

I might add. The official I spoke with about multiple infractions being used in the judgement of some officials to eject was a long standing experienced official and not an upcomer.

I didn't question who you talked to. I was just stating that I talked to my cousin who is a newer official about the situation. HE finally called me back last night (guess he had a Thursday night game that was delayed due to storms).

He just said that basically two personal fouls doesn't get you ejected. He did go on to say that if an act by a player is deemed Flagrant then it could possibly be an ejection (but it has to be pretty serious). He said something like, "you throw a flag for any flagrant/taunting action you better own up to it and see EVERYTHING." There can be no "I think so" or "he might have."

Sounds like after reading about it all is that it was a mistake and those will happen in officiating. My cousin stated something while on the phone, "these guys are most likely normal people who come from their jobs and work the games. They don't get paid a lot of $$ for their work and they are also having to do this w/out instant replay and other assistance like the Div 1/NFL guys." He just said to take it easy on them, as mistakes will happen.

Glad the state was able to catch it and sounds like the kid will get to play, so no harm done.

 

[rkhemp]

How long has the two personal fouls = an ejection been in place?

Never. Just an example of fans not understanding the rules.

A personal foul for a late hit is 15 yards. No automatic first down. (There is an automatic first down for roughing the passer or roughing a punter. Most other personal fouls are just 15 yards.)

Also, in order for a player to be ejected for a personal foul, the official would have to deem it flagrant. This would be like fighting or throwing a punch. If an official determines any act to be flagrant, they can eject that player on their first offense based on their judgement.

Finally, if we are talking about non-contact unsportsmanlike conduct, then this is where a player is ejected for a 2nd unsportsmanlike penalty...these would be taunting, profanity, spiking the football, etc. Don't know how long the rule has been in place, but it has been around as long as I can remember.

Don't know anything about the circumstances from this past Friday night, but these are the rules.

So it really boils down to was it 2 personal foul penalties or 2 unsportsmanlike penalties that were assessed to O'Tool. 2 unsportsmanlike penalties and he should've been ejected and should miss the next game. 2 personal fouls shouldn't have been an ejection (unless the 2nd was deemed flagrant), so was it a misapplication of the rules. In theory, a player could be assessed 10 personal fouls in a single game and never be ejected. (Obviously, hope the coach would pull him far before this happening.) But that is the difference between personal fouls and unsportsmanlike penalties.

Could this be a factor in this situation?

Bearcat,
I was pretty much going to right the exact same thing. You can have 10 personal fouls a game that are not deemed flagrant and not be ejected. You can also get ejected after the first one if the officials believe it was flagrant. Late hits out of bounds happen all the time. Mostly it is just a kid who can't slow down after a pursuit and has no ill-intent to hurt the opposing player.

As mentioned above, 2 Unsportsmanlike penalties result in ejection. Some penalties are spiking the ball, kicking the ball after a play, swearing, or using tobacco. I spoke with an official who has been officiating for about 10 years and they have never thrown an unsportsmanlike penalty. The most common one you would probably see is touchdown celebrations and taunting. Unsportsmanlike penalties are the only time the officials write down the number of the player, as the second one is automatic ejection.

 

[go-hawks37]

Another pathetic thread started by a parent who didn't really know what they were talking about. Then throw in a bunch of so called facts that are not true. Then run kid and dad thru the mud. Please be responsible when you post, especially when it is about a Highschool kid.

 

[stickman80]

Never. Just an example of fans not understanding the rules.



Bearcat,
I was pretty much going to right the exact same thing. You can have 10 personal fouls a game that are not deemed flagrant and not be ejected. You can also get ejected after the first one if the officials believe it was flagrant. Late hits out of bounds happen all the time. Mostly it is just a kid who can't slow down after a pursuit and has no ill-intent to hurt the opposing player.

As mentioned above, 2 Unsportsmanlike penalties result in ejection. Some penalties are spiking the ball, kicking the ball after a play, swearing, or using tobacco. I spoke with an official who has been officiating for about 10 years and they have never thrown an unsportsmanlike penalty. The most common one you would probably see is touchdown celebrations and taunting. Unsportsmanlike penalties are the only time the officials write down the number of the player, as the second one is automatic ejection.

Lawyers thrive where what happens in reality and what could happen on paper are 2 complete different things. I can see a lawyer throwing out the logic that on paper you can have 10 personal fouls and still not be REQUIRED to eject a player.

The reality is that we all know you would never see a game where a ref would allow a player to rack up 10 personal fouls before the kid was tossed. (I would like to believe that a coach would deal with that himself first). Regardless of the rule book any ref who allowed a player to accumulate 10 personal fouls would be in deep poo if that player then injured another player with his 11th personal foul. Even the greenest associate would find that case a slam dunk.

I can honestly see why Boone backed away from this.....what do they really care if the ejection levied by the officiating crew stands or not? It wouldn't impact them in the least if they allow the player to play but could cost them legal fees if they actually backed their officials calls and the unhappy parties pressed on with their legal remedies.

Things do seem to often play themselves out.....look at the softball team who intentionally lost to a "supposedly" inferior team than the Iowa team. It played out both ways......that team lost to Iowa and the "supposedly" inferior team that was "given" a game....they ended up winning the whole tournament.......

 

[Spook 78]

let me try my little lawyer speak here, and I'll even use actual quotes by a st ed alum from earlier in this thread.
You are responsible for your own actions. its that simple.
O,Tool was "successful" in both pulling off a "late hit out of bounds" (direct quote from dark thunder) play and a helmet to helmet play (spearing). Why do I say successful, well its because he obviously wanted it to happen, and it did because a flag was thrown. Why do I say obviously? Well every athlete/student on both teams knows there are out of bounds lines in play. They are painted on the ground and in fact each athlete has to cross over them everytime they enter the field of play. hence he knew there was an out of bounds and he even knew its location. he tackled a kid out of bounds and the kid ended up on the ground. it was a successful tackle and it was out of bounds. it happened to be late and an official saw it and threw a flag. Because O'Tool knew where the out of bounds was he obviously wanted the play to occur.
Next, he was "successful" in pulling off a helmet to helmet play. Why do I say successful? its because he did it and an official saw it and threw a flag. he was successful in his quest. dark thunders direct quote is "hemet to helmet as he dove with his head down as the ball carrier was falling down". In fact that sounds like it could have been deemed a possible late hit as the carrier was falling down but OTool decided to make it worthwhile and lower his helmet. He could have finished the tackle by not leading his helmet, yet he did, it was his action and he is responsible for his own action. And because he was witnessed doing it by an official, and a flag was thrown,he was "successful" in pulling off a "helmet to helmet" penalty.
Lastly, DT is quoted as writing "I don't disagree with either call".

There were 22 players on that field during the game, yet one of them decides that's how he has to play to be successful. Well, congratulations on your "success" SE. Yet MNW showed that you don't have to play that way.......to win.

 

[cidhawkeye]

Wow

 

[warriors dad]

let me try my little lawyer speak here, and I'll even use actual quotes by a st ed alum from earlier in this thread.
You are responsible for your own actions. its that simple.
O,Tool was "successful" in both pulling off a "late hit out of bounds" (direct quote from dark thunder) play and a helmet to helmet play (spearing). Why do I say successful, well its because he obviously wanted it to happen, and it did because a flag was thrown. Why do I say obviously? Well every athlete/student on both teams knows there are out of bounds lines in play. They are painted on the ground and in fact each athlete has to cross over them everytime they enter the field of play. hence he knew there was an out of bounds and he even knew its location. he tackled a kid out of bounds and the kid ended up on the ground. it was a successful tackle and it was out of bounds. it happened to be late and an official saw it and threw a flag. Because O'Tool knew where the out of bounds was he obviously wanted the play to occur.
Next, he was "successful" in pulling off a helmet to helmet play. Why do I say successful? its because he did it and an official saw it and threw a flag. he was successful in his quest. dark thunders direct quote is "hemet to helmet as he dove with his head down as the ball carrier was falling down". In fact that sounds like it could have been deemed a possible late hit as the carrier was falling down but OTool decided to make it worthwhile and lower his helmet. He could have finished the tackle by not leading his helmet, yet he did, it was his action and he is responsible for his own action. And because he was witnessed doing it by an official, and a flag was thrown,he was "successful" in pulling off a "helmet to helmet" penalty.
Lastly, DT is quoted as writing "I don't disagree with either call".

There were 22 players on that field during the game, yet one of them decides that's how he has to play to be successful. Well, congratulations on your "success" SE. Yet MNW showed that you don't have to play that way.......to win.

 

[ghost80]

The game of football is going to get damn ugly if kids think they can go out and commit 10 or more personal fouls per game and the officials can do nothing about it except assess yardage.

It would only take about 2 seconds for some programs to realize that all they have to do to "shut down" a stand out athlete on an opposing team is to throw cheap shot after cheap shot until the stand out player can no longer play.

There could be a real bad message being sent to the kids over this incident.

 

[rkhemp]

Nobody committed 10 damn personal fouls. It was an analogy. Get over yourselves. Sounds like the facts are 1. a kid had 2 personal fouls 2, He was wrongfully ejected per the rules. The state looked at the situation and made the right decision IF what I said is true. Some people on here are pathetic

 

[ghost80]

Nobody committed 10 damn personal fouls. It was an analogy. Get over yourselves. Sounds like the facts are 1. a kid had 2 personal fouls 2, He was wrongfully ejected per the rules. The state looked at the situation and made the right decision IF what I said is true. Some people on here are pathetic

.You are using a ridiculously, unrealistic analogy. Of course no one had 10 personal fouls, no one would ever have 10 personal fouls because there is no way realistically it would ever be allowed to happen. Sticker is right on that and if something can't happen....why try to use it in an argument. What you said CAN'T be true if it ISN'T going to happen in the real world. Example, this statement: "Someday a man might walk on the sun." Yes, it is possible but realistically we know it won't happen so why would a person try to pull a statement like that into an argument.

a·nal·o·gy
əˈnaləjē/
noun

1. a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

Look at the definition of analogy. How can you compare 2 things if one of them (a player picking up 10 personal fouls) could not realistically happen?

The state making a right decision? The state is only interested in making what decision is right for them not anyone else. The state not only avoids potential litigation expenses they also are looking at potential revenue. SE is a school which travels exceptionally well for any playoff game. It is way too early to see if SE will even make the playoffs but the state does have a financial bias in helping SE in any way they can make the playoffs. Allowing a player who leads the team in both offense and defense the opportunity to play in a district game certainly only helps and doesn't hinder SE's chances of a playoff berth. The state certainly has more reasons to allow this player to play than just because they thought it was the right thing to do.

 

[ghost80]

Nobody committed 10 damn personal fouls. It was an analogy. Get over yourselves. Sounds like the facts are 1. a kid had 2 personal fouls 2, He was wrongfully ejected per the rules. The state looked at the situation and made the right decision IF what I said is true. Some people on here are pathetic

Sorry hemp but so far noone on this board has determined that your #2 is fact. If the officials intended to eject him they have every right to do so and it is within the rules. They can even use the fact that he picked up multiple personal fouls in their decision that it is flagrant and in the interest of safety to all he needs to be ejected. The only way they are not following the rules is if they say, "We have to eject him because the rules says he has 2 personal fouls" because there is no rule to automatically eject a player with 2 personal fouls.

 

[rkhemp]

Ghost, give it a rest. Sorry this high school kid seems to have ruined your week. A kid had 2 aggressive penalties trying to make plays in a high school football game. The diifference between hitting a kid late or not is micro seconds. The natural act when lowering yourself to make a tackle is to lower your head. Helmet to helmet contact will continue to happen and not every time is it intentional, especially when the runner is lowering his level at the same time.

The coach, player, and state know way more about the situation than you and I do. I will back the decision. It is nice when people correct mistakes. Just common sense

 

[cidhawkeye]

Exactly RH.

 

[NoJustice]

Did the crew that flagged him twice have a really really short in stature white cap?

 

[TigerHawkTackle]

Did the crew that flagged him twice have a really really short in stature white cap?

They couldn't have because he was at our game that night.

 

[NoJustice]

They couldn't have because he was at our game that night.

Maybe Momma had two flag happy sons?

 

[TigerHawkTackle]

Maybe Momma had two flag happy sons?

God forbid