HALLS @ SOUTH DOYLE

[dawgs82]

I know this game is two weeks away, but after last night's results, this game is possibly for a home game in the playoffs.

[chsbobcat09]

1 hour ago, dawgs82 said:

I know this game is two weeks away, but after last night's results, this game is possibly for a home game in the playoffs.

After watching Halls last night, SD SHOULD win this game. However if Young is out for the next two games as I’m hearing, that could make things interesting in this game. After seeing their score against Seymour last night, is obvious he’s most of the offense.

[bisonpride1]

57 minutes ago, chsbobcat09 said:

After watching Halls last night, SD SHOULD win this game. However if Young is out for the next two games as I’m hearing, that could make things interesting in this game. After seeing their score against Seymour last night, is obvious he’s most of the offense.

Ive seen a couple videos and it’s very possible it’ll be overturned. 5StarPreps said that SD has already appealed the decision. Even without Young SD should’ve won that game. Of course that means they had Brang and Young out. SD seemed to get penalized on every big play. Hopefully this will be a wake up call and they’ll have Young back and Brang back sooner than later. 

[chsbobcat09]

28 minutes ago, knoxfan28 said:

Ive seen a couple videos and it’s very possible it’ll be overturned. 5StarPreps said that SD has already appealed the decision. Even without Young SD should’ve won that game. Of course that means they had Brang and Young out. SD seemed to get penalized on every big play. Hopefully this will be a wake up call and they’ll have Young back and Brang back sooner than later. 

I’ll have to see the play to say wether or not it could possibly be overturned. If it was an honest bad call then it should be overturned. However if it was justified, they better not switch the rules around just because of an impending big game in a couple weeks. I honestly think that’s what this whole discussion is all about, it’s not about him playing vs Halls believe me.

[bisonpride1]

1 minute ago, chsbobcat09 said:

I’ll have to see the play to say wether or not it could possibly be overturned. If it was an honest bad call then it should be overturned. However if it was justified, they better not switch the rules around just because of an impending big game in a couple weeks. I honestly think that’s what this whole discussion is all about, it’s not about him playing vs Halls believe me.

I don't have the video but did see it. What I saw seemed to be complete shoulder to chest. Now will they have enough evidence to overturn it, I have no idea. It was a very close call. I believe it should've been a crack back block and move on. I'm a fan and not a referee though. I just hate it for the kid more than the team. Young is such a great kid and has always worked hard and kept his head down. I think the targeting rule still needs a little help in high school football. Basically ejected 2 games for a very close call is a difficult penalty for high school football especially when you see a lot of teams made up of just a couple players.

[Hadmatter]

It got ugly out there.Seymour is known for home cooking & it showed.Some fans were ejected from SD & the refs had to have a police escort

[HTV]

17 hours ago, chsbobcat09 said:

After watching Halls last night, SD SHOULD win this game. However if Young is out for the next two games as I’m hearing, that could make things interesting in this game. After seeing their score against Seymour last night, is obvious he’s most of the offense.

He couldn't be out for the next two games, just the next one  Jesse said two games because he was ejected early in Friday's game and the rule says the rest of that game and the next game, which in essence is two games in this case.  

 

 

[HTV]

And to answer the question, South Doyle still is the more talented team.  

But for some reason they seem to hit slumps like this during the course of the season no matter how talented they are.  

I know that drives the coaches batty.  

[GBKEES]

You can see the video here. One guy says there is a different view on Hudl from the end zone that clearly shows targeting but couldn't post a link. Looks like targeting to me. Leading with his head in to the face mask of the defender.

[bisonpride1]

3 hours ago, GBKEES said:

You can see the video here. One guy says there is a different view on Hudl from the end zone that clearly shows targeting but couldn't post a link. Looks like targeting to me. Leading with his head in to the face mask of the defender.

No contact was made to the helmet? The contact came from the shoulder into the chest. The end zone view shows that. SD wouldn’t have appealed the decision if they don’t have evidence that it’s not targeting. 

[HTV]

13 minutes ago, knoxfan28 said:

No contact was made to the helmet? The contact came from the shoulder into the chest. The end zone view shows that. SD wouldn’t have appealed the decision if they don’t have evidence that it’s not targeting. 

It's been appealed, but the chances of the TSSAA overturning it are very slim.  They just don't do that very often. 

Having a targeting penalty call in high school football without the benefit of replay isn't fair to either the kids nor the officials.  It needs to be revisited.  

[Rerun92]

No way that's overturned.  Video is inconclusive.