cheezs
All-District 1st Team
Lafayette Christian
Posts: 257
|
Post by cheezs on Feb 10, 2024 20:04:38 GMT -6
If I hear someone talk about a teams "On-Field Record" to me it instantly invalidates the argument they are about to make.
If you cheat, you get stripped of wins that you gained from said cheating.
Meaning you actually lost, because cheating is against the rules and you are disqualified.
Just my thought
|
|
|
Post by Sixpack on Feb 11, 2024 18:25:41 GMT -6
If I hear someone talk about a teams "On-Field Record" to me it instantly invalidates the argument they are about to make. If you cheat, you get stripped of wins that you gained from said cheating. Meaning you actually lost, because cheating is against the rules and you are disqualified. Just my thought Your use of the word ACTUALLY is wrong.
A team that wins a game on the field and then has that win removed for cheating did not ACTUALLY lose the game. They TECHNICALLY lost the game. They lost the game in relation to a rule and that is a technicallity. They ACTUALLY won the game because they had more points on the scoreboard than their opponent.
Some peole will probably call what I just said "semantics" but it isn't. Nobody can ACTUALLY prove that the cheating team would have lost even if they hadn't cheated. They mght have unknowingly cheated without even needing to cheat in order to win.
Evangel once had a 60 game game win streak broken because a substitute special teams player on kickoffs was considered to be ineligible on a contoversial technicality about residencey. That player played no meaningful part in any of those 60 games. Evangel ACTUALLY won all 60 of those games.
|
|
|
Post by HSFan318 on Feb 12, 2024 16:59:13 GMT -6
If I hear someone talk about a teams "On-Field Record" to me it instantly invalidates the argument they are about to make. If you cheat, you get stripped of wins that you gained from said cheating. Meaning you actually lost, because cheating is against the rules and you are disqualified. Just my thought Your use of the word ACTUALLY is wrong.
A team that wins a game on the field and then has that win removed for cheating did not ACTUALLY lose the game. They TECHNICALLY lost the game. They lost the game in relation to a rule and that is a technicallity. They ACTUALLY won the game because they had more points on the scoreboard than their opponent.
Some peole will probably call what I just said "semantics" but it isn't. Nobody can ACTUALLY prove that the cheating team would have lost even if they hadn't cheated. They mght have unknowingly cheated without even needing to cheat in order to win.
Evangel once had a 60 game game win streak broken because a substitute special teams player on kickoffs was considered to be ineligible on a contoversial technicality about residencey. That player played no meaningful part in any of those 60 games. Evangel ACTUALLY won all 60 of those games. So he ACTUALLY was on the field but TECHNICALLY was not supposed to be...That just sounds like a LOSS in the record book.
|
|
|
Post by Sixpack on Feb 12, 2024 19:20:05 GMT -6
Your use of the word ACTUALLY is wrong.
A team that wins a game on the field and then has that win removed for cheating did not ACTUALLY lose the game. They TECHNICALLY lost the game. They lost the game in relation to a rule and that is a technicallity. They ACTUALLY won the game because they had more points on the scoreboard than their opponent.
Some peole will probably call what I just said "semantics" but it isn't. Nobody can ACTUALLY prove that the cheating team would have lost even if they hadn't cheated. They mght have unknowingly cheated without even needing to cheat in order to win.
Evangel once had a 60 game game win streak broken because a substitute special teams player on kickoffs was considered to be ineligible on a contoversial technicality about residencey. That player played no meaningful part in any of those 60 games. Evangel ACTUALLY won all 60 of those games. So he ACTUALLY was on the field but TECHNICALLY was not supposed to be...That just sounds like a LOSS in the record book. It WAS a loss in the record book.
But it was actually an Evangel win on the field. And that ACTUAL on the field win was removed as a win in the record book only because of a rule technicality.
Whether Evangel would have won the game if the substitute player had not played on the kickoff team is debatable. The fact that Evangel ACUALLY won the game as well as 59 other games in the streak is not debatable. LHSAA rules are used for punishment not to prove who has the best team.
Common sense says the infraction in Evangel's case had nothing to do with the final score in the game. But rules don't always allow for common sense. Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on who you want to win, a TECHNICAL loss is still a loss in the record book. And I'm not saying it isn't. I'm just saying it is not an ACTUAL on the scoreboard loss. It is a technical loss.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Feb 12, 2024 19:20:55 GMT -6
Your use of the word ACTUALLY is wrong.
A team that wins a game on the field and then has that win removed for cheating did not ACTUALLY lose the game. They TECHNICALLY lost the game. They lost the game in relation to a rule and that is a technicallity. They ACTUALLY won the game because they had more points on the scoreboard than their opponent.
Some peole will probably call what I just said "semantics" but it isn't. Nobody can ACTUALLY prove that the cheating team would have lost even if they hadn't cheated. They mght have unknowingly cheated without even needing to cheat in order to win.
Evangel once had a 60 game game win streak broken because a substitute special teams player on kickoffs was considered to be ineligible on a contoversial technicality about residencey. That player played no meaningful part in any of those 60 games. Evangel ACTUALLY won all 60 of those games. So he ACTUALLY was on the field but TECHNICALLY was not supposed to be...That just sounds like a LOSS in the record book.Yep, and what a coincidence that the only ineligible player that ever played at evangel got caught. Unbelievably amazing.
|
|
|
Post by Sixpack on Feb 12, 2024 19:52:48 GMT -6
So he ACTUALLY was on the field but TECHNICALLY was not supposed to be...That just sounds like a LOSS in the record book. Yep, and what a coincidence that the only ineligible player that ever played at evangel got caught. Unbelievably amazing What's amazing about it? The LHSAA ruled the infraction was "unintentional".
So, do you truly believe that Evangel accomplished their very successful record with ONLY one unintentional infraction in all those years of winning? If you do that is a compliment.
But if you are trying to be sarcastic by implying there were other Evangel infractions then name the other infractions. And don't bother posting what you THINK or what you HEARD. I've heard it all before and it's just pizzing in the wind.
|
|
|
Post by HSFan318 on Feb 13, 2024 7:46:38 GMT -6
Yep, and what a coincidence that the only ineligible player that ever played at evangel got caught. Unbelievably amazing What's amazing about it? The LHSAA ruled the infraction was "unintentional".
So, do you truly believe that Evangel accomplished their very successful record with ONLY one unintentional infraction in all those years of winning? If you do that is a compliment.
But if you are trying to be sarcastic by implying there were other Evangel infractions then name the other infractions. And don't bother posting what you THINK or what you HEARD. I've heard it all before and it's just pizzing in the wind. I know...I always hate those UNINTENTIONAL infractions like pass interference, holding, and ineligible kids playing. So glad the scoreboard still showed an actual win. And congrats on the new QB... awesome the LHSAA ruled him ACTUALLY eligible immediately so no more UNINTENTIONAL issues arise.
|
|
|
Post by Southplaq on Feb 13, 2024 16:47:33 GMT -6
If I hear someone talk about a teams "On-Field Record" to me it instantly invalidates the argument they are about to make. If you cheat, you get stripped of wins that you gained from said cheating. Meaning you actually lost, because cheating is against the rules and you are disqualified. Just my thought So, by this logic, JT Curtis is still second of the list of All-time winningest coaches, since 30 of his wins were forfeited because of this ruling pertaining to Allen, who played OT for Curits from 2013-2015, living with Coach Godfrey: The rules Curtis were found to have been in violation fell under Section 2, titled, “Recruiting.” More specifically, subsets 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 of the LHSAA handbook, which in part states: "Athletic recruiting’ is defined as the use of undue influence and/or special inducement by anyone connected directly or indirectly with an LHSAA school in an attempt to encourage, induce, pressure, urge or entice a prospective student of any age to transfer to or retain a student at a school for the purpose of participating in interscholastic athletics.” What's weird is that linebacker/Running back, Kenny Cain, was in the same situation and lived with Godfrey from 2005-09, and nothing came of it.
|
|
|
Post by unbiasedobserver on Feb 13, 2024 17:08:26 GMT -6
If I hear someone talk about a teams "On-Field Record" to me it instantly invalidates the argument they are about to make. If you cheat, you get stripped of wins that you gained from said cheating. Meaning you actually lost, because cheating is against the rules and you are disqualified. Just my thought So, by this logic, JT Curtis is still second of the list of All-time winningest coaches, since 30 of his wins were forfeited because of this ruling pertaining to Allen, who played OT for Curits from 2013-2015, living with Coach Godfrey: The rules Curtis were found to have been in violation fell under Section 2, titled, “Recruiting.” More specifically, subsets 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 of the LHSAA handbook, which in part states: "Athletic recruiting’ is defined as the use of undue influence and/or special inducement by anyone connected directly or indirectly with an LHSAA school in an attempt to encourage, induce, pressure, urge or entice a prospective student of any age to transfer to or retain a student at a school for the purpose of participating in interscholastic athletics.” What's weird is that linebacker/Running back, Kenny Cain, was in the same situation and lived with Godfrey from 2005-09, and nothing came of it. I’ve never actually read that rule. It states that encouraging to retain a student is a violation. So if a kid says he’s thinking about transferring someone that is indirectly connected to a school asking him to stay is a violation? Lol. How ridiculous
|
|
|
Post by Southplaq on Feb 13, 2024 17:23:55 GMT -6
So, by this logic, JT Curtis is still second of the list of All-time winningest coaches, since 30 of his wins were forfeited because of this ruling pertaining to Allen, who played OT for Curits from 2013-2015, living with Coach Godfrey: The rules Curtis were found to have been in violation fell under Section 2, titled, “Recruiting.” More specifically, subsets 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 of the LHSAA handbook, which in part states: "Athletic recruiting’ is defined as the use of undue influence and/or special inducement by anyone connected directly or indirectly with an LHSAA school in an attempt to encourage, induce, pressure, urge or entice a prospective student of any age to transfer to or retain a student at a school for the purpose of participating in interscholastic athletics.” What's weird is that linebacker/Running back, Kenny Cain, was in the same situation and lived with Godfrey from 2005-09, and nothing came of it. I’ve never actually read that rule. It states that encouraging to retain a student is a violation. So if a kid says he’s thinking about transferring someone that is indirectly connected to a school asking him to stay is a violation? Lol. How ridiculous I think the key word here is " SPECIAL" Inducement to encourage them to come to a school or stay at a specific school. Now, how we define or interpret the word " SPECIAL" is arbitrary and subjective. I guess it depends on who is doing the talking. I would say that the mob talking to someone can be very influential and encouraging, and may fall under the "SPECIAL" category. LOL
|
|
|
Post by bhossmac on Feb 14, 2024 7:42:08 GMT -6
I know...I always hate those UNINTENTIONAL infractions like pass interference, holding, and ineligible kids playing. So glad the scoreboard still showed an actual win. And congrats on the new QB... awesome the LHSAA ruled him ACTUALLY eligible immediately so no more UNINTENTIONAL issues arise.
I'm still trying to figure this one out, and wondering about the long-term impact this new precedent will set. I'm sure the Loyola QB who transferred from Calvary and had to sit out a full calendar year, missing the first four games of this past season, would love to have those four games from his senior season back.
|
|
|
Post by bhossmac on Feb 14, 2024 7:46:20 GMT -6
I’ve never actually read that rule. It states that encouraging to retain a student is a violation. So if a kid says he’s thinking about transferring someone that is indirectly connected to a school asking him to stay is a violation? Lol. How ridiculous I think the key word here is " SPECIAL" Inducement to encourage them to come to a school or stay at a specific school. Now, how we define or interpret the word " SPECIAL" is arbitrary and subjective. I guess it depends on who is doing the talking. I would say that the mob talking to someone can be very influential and encouraging, and may fall under the "SPECIAL" category. LOL Let me be clear: I have no problem with what the Curtis coaches did in the Allen situation. They didn't recruit him to get him to Curtis, and they did something that was in the best interest of the kid once he got there. I do not have a problem with that. Heck, when I was coaching, we had a kid essentially live with our head coach because his housing situation was so poor. People make sacrifices and do things to help other people all the time. That said, I think the Allen situation qualifies as "special" because they ruled that if he wasn't a big-time Division I football prospect, he wouldn't have been given that opportunity. Basically, that's not something they would have done for just any student. And, yes, there are certainly people who believe that J.T. Curtis remains as the second-winningest coach of all time because of those 30 forfeits.
|
|