Oh, I agree there should most definitely be repercussions (and now I see above that there are, and that seems appropriate), and I said above that out of all the people on the crew, somebody should have had a clue.

We have to get those things right. I'm just saying they sure don't make things any easier on us.

Mike, same as if it were incomplete. If the penalty is accepted, there would be a loss of down and there is no untimed down.

The article has the mandatory sportswriters' abuse of this phrase. :rolleyes:

Weirdly, the second sentence exhibits correct usage.

(If you have no idea what I'm talking about, see this site.)

This begs the question of how supposedly college-educated sportswriters could have blown such a critical sentence because they don't know grammar. It raises a rather ugly question of just how competent some of these sportswriters really are.

All we needed were the terms "Physicality" and "Step Up" and we would've had most of the cliches covered, no? :)

110% and one game at a time were on the bench, waiting to come in.

Oh, I knew. We covered logic and argumentation in one of my college philosophy classes.

REPLY: No Mike...If the IFP was caught, the play would continue until the down ended by rule. Acceptance of the penalty would not result in an untimed down. That's the rule change referred to in an earlier post. A few years back the Fed changed the rule to say that if there is a foul during the last timed down of a period and the penalty for that foul includes loss of down, there is no untimed down.

Finally we are done! Thank-you Bob M.

I guess I am missing a lot of this. A forward pass hit the ground? Was the pass behind or beyond the LOS, what down was it and how much time was on the clock when the ball touched the ground?

The article said the pass was 18 yards beyond the LOS. It didn't give the down but the clock did expire during the run so the previous down was irrelevant. You bring up a good point about the clock status when the ball hit the ground but they made it sound like there were only a couple seconds left so I assume the clock expired prior to the imcomplete pass.

I'm not a football official, but this topic is interesting.

I offer a couple of items to the discussion.

First, from the MHSAA 08-09 Handbook, Article III, Section A-1I wonder how they managed to ignore that sentence in their own handbook.

2008 - 2009 Mississippi High School Activities Association, Inc. Handbook

Second, here is a (poor) video, and from the location in the stands, apparently shot by a Leland fan.

Walnut-Leland Game End

Third, despite the esoteric meaning by debate societies of the phrase "beg the question", in the English language the rest of us use, the phrase clearly means "raise the question"... ;)

Going against your own constitution. Ouch.

All the articles I have been reading led me to believe MS's rules permitted protests/appeals based on "rules decisions" but not judgment. Now that I actually see the book, I realize once again the media does not know what it is talking about. The only place in here where there is differentiation between the 2 is in the section re ejections of coaches. If a coach is ejected after arguing a judgment call he cannot protest the ejection But if ejected for arguing a rule interp, he can protest.

Wow, very dangerous precedent, going against their own by-laws. I would imagine if the team that protested, if they were to win the state championship, would have a tarnished image. The constitution and by-laws are so extensive, I didn't really see if there's a bigger assembly that can override the board. If so, I can see some problems down the road when that assembly meets.