#1-GRANT 21 vs #3-ST. MARY'S 14 - FINAL
- Thread starter bulldogmgc
- Start date
Re: #1-GRANT 14 vs #3-ST. MARY'S 14 - end of 3rd QTR
Lot of penalties have pushed the Rams back with 17 seconds left 4th down at Grant 17 yrd line.
Timeout
Lot of penalties have pushed the Rams back with 17 seconds left 4th down at Grant 17 yrd line.
Timeout
Re: #1-GRANT 14 vs #3-ST. MARY'S 14 - end of 3rd QTR
St. Mary's pass dropped 1 yard from the endzone ballgame over.
Grant wins 21-14.
St. Mary's pass dropped 1 yard from the endzone ballgame over.
Grant wins 21-14.
Re: #1-GRANT 14 vs #3-ST. MARY'S 14 - end of 3rd QTR
SORRY CCS....GAME OVER...I STILL WANT SHP TO MAKE THE TRIP TO SAC.
SORRY CCS....GAME OVER...I STILL WANT SHP TO MAKE THE TRIP TO SAC.
Re: #1-GRANT 14 vs #3-ST. MARY'S 14 - end of 3rd QTR
PAAAAAAAACEEEERRRRS PAAAAAAAACEEEERRRRS PAAAAAAAACEEEERRRRS PAAAAAAAACEEEERRRRS PAAAAAAAACEEEERRRRS
PAAAAAAAACEEEERRRRS PAAAAAAAACEEEERRRRS PAAAAAAAACEEEERRRRS PAAAAAAAACEEEERRRRS PAAAAAAAACEEEERRRRS
Re: #1-GRANT 14 vs #3-ST. MARY'S 14 - end of 3rd QTR
We don't give a damn who youa pick. PAAAAAAAACEEEERRRRS
We don't give a damn who youa pick. PAAAAAAAACEEEERRRRS
Re: #1-GRANT 14 vs #3-ST. MARY'S 14 - end of 3rd QTR
The argument for SHP just got a whole lot stronger tonight.
The argument for SHP just got a whole lot stronger tonight.
Great game and the officiating was pretty good till the end. SM scored on a pass in the right flats, ref called him down at 3 inch line then SM goes for it instead of kicking the go ahead field goal. 77 throws a fit and slams his helmet at mid field. CIF rules call for an automatic ejection. I am completely clueless at what the officials are thinking here. Removal of the helmet calls for a 1 play removal from the game. Slamming the helmet with an unsportsmanlike penalty is an ejection. That is a huge miss on the refs. And the final drive. SM 4th and goal from the 3. Grant called for PI or holding I could not tell. First down SM at the 1. Next play they call SM for a penalty on a TD and bring the ball back to the 17. Should be 1st and goal at the 17 with 17 seconds left. Pass ruled incomplete and now it is called a mysterious 4th down. Grant ball. Where did all the other downs go.
This post was edited on 12/5 11:30 PM by cvhl
This post was edited on 12/5 11:31 PM by cvhl
This post was edited on 12/5 11:30 PM by cvhl
This post was edited on 12/5 11:31 PM by cvhl
Grant didn't win that game. St Mary's lost it. If Grant is selected and plays like that it's lights out in my opinion.
SHP should be given the nod. IT JUST WON"T HAPPEN
And for all of you that wanted to see a DeLaSalle / Grant game, Spartans would roll them. Their discipline just is not there on defense. Grant is a lot bigger offensively than defensively and the DLS veer would just be lethal. St Marys matched up size wise well while on O but while on D Grant was far superior size wise.
This post was edited on 12/5 11:40 PM by farmair3
And for all of you that wanted to see a DeLaSalle / Grant game, Spartans would roll them. Their discipline just is not there on defense. Grant is a lot bigger offensively than defensively and the DLS veer would just be lethal. St Marys matched up size wise well while on O but while on D Grant was far superior size wise.
This post was edited on 12/5 11:40 PM by farmair3
Re: #1-GRANT 7 vs #3-ST. MARY'S 7 - halftime
Still, proud SM competed when someone we know stated that a decent SM team could not compete ... too small and too slow. LOL!
Before this game, I already stated SHP would get picked to play Folsom due to politics. Folsom has a good defense and their offense is much more potent than SHP or Grant's. So IMHO it's a mute issue. DLS is Open tep. Folsom is D1 rep. Again, congrats to Grant and Pacer Nation!
This post was edited on 12/6 6:47 AM by bulldogmgc
Replay of SM TD taken away
From the stands and from replay Tavonne Johnson dove from in bounds, flew in the air, and knocked the orange pylon down with ball in hand. In the NFL a knocked down pylon is a TD. Guess this rule does not apply in high school football. But, blame is not on the refs. Two things cost SM the loss: 1) SM secondary giving up the long passes, not once, not twice, but three times. SM free safety no where in sight. If burnt once, I would anticipate adjustments to be made. Nope. 2) 3 golden opportunities to put points on the board inside Grant's 10 yard line, 3 times = 0 points. It's not like SM does not have a good kicker. But as tough as Grant's D was, shake off the ego and get the points. Would think 2009 Del Oro game would have been a huge reminder. Much credit to Grant's D, but points are points. As close as this game was being played and anticipated to be, plus 2009 DO game, that was huge. Sure last scenario required to go for TD, but if the prior 2 opps resulted in FG's, SM would only need a FG to win with this last opp.
Still, proud SM competed when someone we know stated that a decent SM team could not compete ... too small and too slow. LOL!
Before this game, I already stated SHP would get picked to play Folsom due to politics. Folsom has a good defense and their offense is much more potent than SHP or Grant's. So IMHO it's a mute issue. DLS is Open tep. Folsom is D1 rep. Again, congrats to Grant and Pacer Nation!
This post was edited on 12/6 6:47 AM by bulldogmgc
Replay of SM TD taken away
Bulldog, you are spot on your call of the game. SM coaching staff failed big time making adjustments. And not putting the points on the board blew my mind. I was the one yelling kick the field goal if you heard me. You never walk away from points in a 14 to 14 game. I might of understood if it was 42 to 42 and touchdowns were all that mattered. And yes Johnson scored.
Still baffled on 77 being allowed to come back into the game. Talked to two of my ref friends and both were dead set that an ejection is the rule.
Lastly, the call at the end was PI. This is all I could find when pulling up CIF rules on PI:
1. Interfering with the receiver's ( or defender's) attempt to catch a forward pass that is beyond the line of scrimmage, or face guarding ( putting hands in the face of the receiver ,or defender) in order to prevent seeing the pass, is a foul.
Both offense and defense have a right to the ball. Pass Interference restrictions end when the pass is touched by a defensive player or a eligible offensive receiver.
( Penalty is 15 yards, automatic 1st down for defensive P.I. 15 yards, loss of down for offensive P.I.)
Determining whether the contact is illegal is a judgment call. Some factors that need to be considered when determining whether P.I. has occurred are:
1. Was the offender playing the man or attempting to catch the ball. Contact that is incidental or unavoidable during both players attempting to catch the ball is NOT interference. If I see a defender contacting the receiver before the pass arrives, with his back to the ball, my flag is coming out.
2. The defender went through the receiver to deflect the pass. In this case, the defender had to contact the receiver before he could get to the ball.
3. Like the block/charge rule in basketball, I look at the play from an advantage/disadvantage point of view.
4. Was the pass forward and beyond the line of scrimmage. It is common to see contact before the catch on screen passes. If the pass does NOT cross the line of scrimmage, it can't be pass interference.
This is from 2007. Rules may have been changed and I could not pull up CIF rule book. and the score board agreed with me. It was 1st down at the one on the board.
Either way it was a great game. In my eyes SM out played them but score board is all that counts. Fun to watch that is for sure.
This post was edited on 12/6 8:11 AM by cvhl
This post was edited on 12/6 8:17 AM by cvhl
Still baffled on 77 being allowed to come back into the game. Talked to two of my ref friends and both were dead set that an ejection is the rule.
Lastly, the call at the end was PI. This is all I could find when pulling up CIF rules on PI:
1. Interfering with the receiver's ( or defender's) attempt to catch a forward pass that is beyond the line of scrimmage, or face guarding ( putting hands in the face of the receiver ,or defender) in order to prevent seeing the pass, is a foul.
Both offense and defense have a right to the ball. Pass Interference restrictions end when the pass is touched by a defensive player or a eligible offensive receiver.
( Penalty is 15 yards, automatic 1st down for defensive P.I. 15 yards, loss of down for offensive P.I.)
Determining whether the contact is illegal is a judgment call. Some factors that need to be considered when determining whether P.I. has occurred are:
1. Was the offender playing the man or attempting to catch the ball. Contact that is incidental or unavoidable during both players attempting to catch the ball is NOT interference. If I see a defender contacting the receiver before the pass arrives, with his back to the ball, my flag is coming out.
2. The defender went through the receiver to deflect the pass. In this case, the defender had to contact the receiver before he could get to the ball.
3. Like the block/charge rule in basketball, I look at the play from an advantage/disadvantage point of view.
4. Was the pass forward and beyond the line of scrimmage. It is common to see contact before the catch on screen passes. If the pass does NOT cross the line of scrimmage, it can't be pass interference.
This is from 2007. Rules may have been changed and I could not pull up CIF rule book. and the score board agreed with me. It was 1st down at the one on the board.
Either way it was a great game. In my eyes SM out played them but score board is all that counts. Fun to watch that is for sure.
This post was edited on 12/6 8:11 AM by cvhl
This post was edited on 12/6 8:17 AM by cvhl
This is from NFHS Rule book, 2013 changes:
"The 15-yard penalty will remain for both offensive and defensive pass interference. The loss of down has been removed for offensive pass interference and the automatic first down has been eliminated for defensive pass interference."
I posted the video replay on a prior page on this thread. Video is courtesy of Stockton Sportsnet. He leaped inbounds and ball in hand knocked over orange pylon. Must be high school rule to mark the ball on the 1 yard line when pylon is hit. Lol!
When I saw the play live, I thought it was a good call. When I just watched the replay for the very first time at full speed, I wasn't certain one way or the other. It looked like he may have touched out of bounds just prior to crossing the goalline and touching the pylon. When I slowed it down and then adjusted frame by frame, I agree that he appears to score before going out of bounds.
However, at full speed, seeing it one time and having the Pacer defender on top of the Rams receiver and obstructing his view, I can totally understand why the ref felt he was out of bounds prior to crossing.
That's a bang-bang 50/50 call. Unfortunately for the Rams it didn't go their way and they couldn't overcome the call on the next play.
This post was edited on 12/6 11:00 AM by ThunderRam
However, at full speed, seeing it one time and having the Pacer defender on top of the Rams receiver and obstructing his view, I can totally understand why the ref felt he was out of bounds prior to crossing.
That's a bang-bang 50/50 call. Unfortunately for the Rams it didn't go their way and they couldn't overcome the call on the next play.
This post was edited on 12/6 11:00 AM by ThunderRam
bulldogmgc posted on 12/6/2014...
___________________________________________________________________________
Here's the deal on bulldogmgc video play. First of all, that was a great call by SM's OC. Secondly, the Pacers and Rams players both made a helluva "EFFORT" on that play. Thirdly, the Ref was not in a good position to make a good perfect call on that play. It was obvious that he played the feet of the SM's player and not the ball placement. So in all fairness he made the right call because it was third down which would give SM's another opportunity to score. If he made the call the other way and it wasn't a score Grant wouldn't have another opportunity to redeem themselves. So I believe under the circumstances the right call was made because it was too close to call one way or another.
Now cvhl, it's totally clear that you are a SM fan or you didn't want any part of Grant to win that game. And that's okay. But what isn't okay is for you to rant about #77 to be kicked out of the game. The kid let his "EMOTIONS" to get the best of him in the heat of battle. If you enjoy watching a good team beat another good team without their best athletes than why be a fan of the sport? I was taught if you want to be the best you have to beat the best. Hypothetically speaking now... If I was to play a team without their best players and win it wouldn't be the same as beating them with their best players.. So I'm glad the Refs didn't kick the kid out of the game and possibly the next game as well. The coaches should be schooling this kid on how to control his emotions when tackling adversity.
NCSF, I totally agree with you in regards to Joe Davidson... The guy has never been a thorough sports reporter and he's not as professional as he should be at this point in his career.. But that's the best the Bee can do I guess...
I posted the video replay on a prior page on this thread. Video is courtesy of Stockton Sportsnet. He leaped inbounds and ball in hand knocked over orange pylon. Must be high school rule to mark the ball on the 1 yard line when pylon is hit. Lol!
___________________________________________________________________________
Here's the deal on bulldogmgc video play. First of all, that was a great call by SM's OC. Secondly, the Pacers and Rams players both made a helluva "EFFORT" on that play. Thirdly, the Ref was not in a good position to make a good perfect call on that play. It was obvious that he played the feet of the SM's player and not the ball placement. So in all fairness he made the right call because it was third down which would give SM's another opportunity to score. If he made the call the other way and it wasn't a score Grant wouldn't have another opportunity to redeem themselves. So I believe under the circumstances the right call was made because it was too close to call one way or another.
Now cvhl, it's totally clear that you are a SM fan or you didn't want any part of Grant to win that game. And that's okay. But what isn't okay is for you to rant about #77 to be kicked out of the game. The kid let his "EMOTIONS" to get the best of him in the heat of battle. If you enjoy watching a good team beat another good team without their best athletes than why be a fan of the sport? I was taught if you want to be the best you have to beat the best. Hypothetically speaking now... If I was to play a team without their best players and win it wouldn't be the same as beating them with their best players.. So I'm glad the Refs didn't kick the kid out of the game and possibly the next game as well. The coaches should be schooling this kid on how to control his emotions when tackling adversity.
NCSF, I totally agree with you in regards to Joe Davidson... The guy has never been a thorough sports reporter and he's not as professional as he should be at this point in his career.. But that's the best the Bee can do I guess...
I'm a little like ThunderRam in that the view I have of the video on my laptop isn't definitive, but the pylon definitely goes down. Did St. Mary's contest it, or maybe everyone was distracted because of the two Grant players being hurt on the play?
PGW - I think the refs allowed Paulo some leeway because they did see what happened to him and then heavily considered the magnitude of the game.
In regards to Joe Davidson, I agree to a point. I like that the guy is very enthusiastic, passionate and dedicated to local HS football. And because he didn't attend HS in the State, he is probably as unbiased as it's possible to be - although he still has developed allegiances to certain coaches and programs over the years.
That said, over the years I've noticed a lot of mistakes in his work, specifically when it comes to stats and records. He'll pull data from Maxpreps (not always complete) or rely upon other fallible sources and be ok with it. I've done a ton of research over the years for my records database and I know how difficult it is to find reliable and correct info, especially the further in time you go back. On a few occasions, I've made attempts to clarify/verify things with him and he doesn't seem interested in getting things as close to accurate as possible. That's my perception anyway.
This post was edited on 12/6 12:08 PM by ThunderRam
In regards to Joe Davidson, I agree to a point. I like that the guy is very enthusiastic, passionate and dedicated to local HS football. And because he didn't attend HS in the State, he is probably as unbiased as it's possible to be - although he still has developed allegiances to certain coaches and programs over the years.
That said, over the years I've noticed a lot of mistakes in his work, specifically when it comes to stats and records. He'll pull data from Maxpreps (not always complete) or rely upon other fallible sources and be ok with it. I've done a ton of research over the years for my records database and I know how difficult it is to find reliable and correct info, especially the further in time you go back. On a few occasions, I've made attempts to clarify/verify things with him and he doesn't seem interested in getting things as close to accurate as possible. That's my perception anyway.
This post was edited on 12/6 12:08 PM by ThunderRam
Speaking of which, has there been an update on the injured player that was carted off the field on a stretcher? I don't even know who is was for sure. I'm hoping it wasn't as serious as it looked and that they were just being extra careful.
Thunder,
I don't dislike the guy as well but you hit the nail on the head with the allegiances to certain coaches and programs. He has been very bias in that aspect of his career and hopefully someone will bring it to his attention because it's not cool.
This post was edited on 12/6 12:21 PM by PGownsWHITNEY
I don't dislike the guy as well but you hit the nail on the head with the allegiances to certain coaches and programs. He has been very bias in that aspect of his career and hopefully someone will bring it to his attention because it's not cool.
This post was edited on 12/6 12:21 PM by PGownsWHITNEY
Refs took 2 td's off the board for sm. The offensive PI on the last td was a bad call. The ref saw the pick, but failed to see that the receiver caught the ball behind the line of scrimmage, which makes it legal to block downfield. This is in addition to the TD where cotton hit the pylon with the ball. Maybe both tough calls, but unfortunate in a one score game to have the refs take 2 scores off the board.
If the refs were following the rules 77 should have been thrown out. 2 personal fouls in a game is an ejection. They flagged him for pushing the sm player and again for slamming his helmet. Both flags were legit. Ejected or not, that is no excuse for allowing grant toget a first down after 2nd and 40.
Grant played well enough to win, but so did SM. If you want to take the refs and bad breaks out of the game you need to play better than sm did on Friday.
Haven't seen Shp play, but based on their results, I imagine they would be very competitive with grant and a deserving choice if they get selected. I think folsom beats either, but the game will be more competitive than some think.
Grant does deserve to go IF the selection committee follows their own protocol, based on grants SOS being higher and the other criteria being either a push or not applicable. I would not be even a little surprised if it's shp though.
If the refs were following the rules 77 should have been thrown out. 2 personal fouls in a game is an ejection. They flagged him for pushing the sm player and again for slamming his helmet. Both flags were legit. Ejected or not, that is no excuse for allowing grant toget a first down after 2nd and 40.
Grant played well enough to win, but so did SM. If you want to take the refs and bad breaks out of the game you need to play better than sm did on Friday.
Haven't seen Shp play, but based on their results, I imagine they would be very competitive with grant and a deserving choice if they get selected. I think folsom beats either, but the game will be more competitive than some think.
Grant does deserve to go IF the selection committee follows their own protocol, based on grants SOS being higher and the other criteria being either a push or not applicable. I would not be even a little surprised if it's shp though.
I am a SM fan, that is true. I have been playing and or coaching sports for 40 years and I have to completely disagree with you on my issues with 77. Rules are rules and they were not applied in this case, however, as a coach enthusiasm is not an excuse for that kind of behavior. I have sat my own kids for far less for the remainder of a game because that should not be tolerated at all. It was way after the initial flags and sends an absolute horrible message to all of the other kids. So on that note we can agree to disagree.
The ref was in great position to make the call and just because there is another down in no way makes it the right call. The ref blew the call, end of story. That does not mean SM would have won it just sucks to lose that way.
Lastly, SM had plenty of other opportunities to win the game themselves. So that I am fully aware of. And as I said, it was a great game and hats off to both teams.
The ref was in great position to make the call and just because there is another down in no way makes it the right call. The ref blew the call, end of story. That does not mean SM would have won it just sucks to lose that way.
Lastly, SM had plenty of other opportunities to win the game themselves. So that I am fully aware of. And as I said, it was a great game and hats off to both teams.
Similar threads
