A question ....

[Lafayette]

One of Lafayette's players got an unsportsmanlike penalty and was ejected from the game in the first half. I didn't see the actual action as it happened on a Lafayette fumble and a mass of players on top of each other. I heard it was for kicking a Poquoson player. Is this a one game suspension or more? Not a smart move by the player, and another 100+ yard penalty game. One negated another nice TD, about the fifth Td called back for a penalty this season. It could be a short stay in the playoffs with this penalty crap.

 

[VAHSFootballFan]

I'm pretty sure it's at least two. If they call it fighting it's 3.

 

[DinwiddieProud]

An appeal is available. The worst that could happen is it gets upheld.

See page 57 of the Handbook. "Intentionally kicking" is considered fighting, which results in a 3 game suspension.

http://www.vhsl.org/download/61/general/1830/vhsl-handbook.pdf

 

[Lafayette]

On the internet is says one

An appeal is available. The worst that could happen is it gets upheld.

See page 57 of the Handbook. "Intentionally kicking" is considered fighting, which results in a 3 game suspension.

http://www.vhsl.org/download/61/general/1830/vhsl-handbook.pdf

Thanks/ in the fumble pile up I am sure something happened the refs did not see that caused that reaction. As he left the field he threw his helmet to the ground harder than I have ever seen here, first player ejection I have witnessed at Lafayette in 20 years. Don't know if they will appeal or likelihood of reduction.

 

[gwb16]

Poquoson plays with psychological warfare. Part of their game is to mentally and emotionally abuse you. You won't play another team anywhere that talks more trash than the Bull Islanders. Fact.

 

[Lafayette]

Poquoson plays with psychological warfare. Part of their game is to mentally and emotionally abuse you. You won't play another team anywhere that talks more trash than the Bull Islanders. Fact.

I would assume Linn and the AD would appeal and bring to light the circumstances and the player is a senior with no other issues. The odd thing is when it happened no one in the stands saw it, only the refs who were very flag happy. One fan at half time talked to one of the coaches and told him it was kicking, otherwise we were all clueless. Can't imagine how severe it was if no one saw it.

 

[gwb16]

Lafayette has ALWAYS played with class and great sportsmanship. Nothing but a huge amount of respect for the Rams, hate losing to them frequently, but it's a loss that is usually to a better team.

 

[LunchPailD]

NFHS Rule 2-11: Fighting is any attempt by a player or nonplayer to strike or engage a player or nonplayer in a combative manner unrelated to football. Such acts include, but are not limited to, attempts to strike an opponent(s) with the arm(s), hand(s), leg(s) or foot (feet), whether or not there is contact.

Doesn’t matter how “severe” the contact was or even if there was no contact at all. If it was an intentional kick, it’s fighting and an automatic 3 game suspension by the VHSL handbook as DP stated.

Seeing as this is covered two-fold (in the rules book and in the VHSL handbook), I doubt a reduction in suspension will be granted.

 

[Lafayette]

NFHS Rule 2-11: Fighting is any attempt by a player or nonplayer to strike or engage a player or nonplayer in a combative manner unrelated to football. Such acts include, but are not limited to, attempts to strike an opponent(s) with the arm(s), hand(s), leg(s) or foot (feet), whether or not there is contact.

Doesn’t matter how “severe” the contact was or even if there was no contact at all. If it was an intentional kick, it’s fighting and an automatic 3 game suspension by the VHSL handbook as DP stated.

Seeing as this is covered two-fold (in the rules book and in the VHSL handbook), I doubt a reduction in suspension will be granted.

That would be typical for what I have seen from VHSL, no grey area , no compromise, no review of what else may have happened to instigate. Not like life or the real law. Of course if in a pile of players and one on top would not got off and you kicked to get him off is that not football related? Hmmm?

 

[86CulpGrad]

That would be typical for what I have seen from VHSL, no grey area , no compromise, no review of what else may have happened to instigate. Not like life or the real law. Of course if in a pile of players and one on top would not got off and you kicked to get him off is that not football related? Hmmm?

The problem is you're always going to get 2 different stories on how bad/intentional it was.

 

[Twobyfour]

Video has and is often used in the appeal process with good results

 

[DinwiddieProud]

In the absence of clear video evidence refuting what the game official stated that he witnessed, it must be upheld on appeal.

It's as simple as this, either a kick occurred, or it didn't. If it occurred, (and at this point as far as we know, it did occur), it's "fighting" and it's a three game suspension.

As explained to me, there can be no reduction in the penalty. It's either three games or it didn't occur.

 

[BleedingNavy]

There is a provision where the two prinipals of the schools involved can discuss the matter and if the video shows the penalty is too harsh for the foul the ejection can be upheld, but the penalty removed or the ejection can be removed period. But only if, the offended school agrees.

I know this for a fact, because it happened to my crew this past spring. The ruling was deemed correct, the ejection upheld, but the principals waived the mandatory suspension.

The VHSL suprinsingly lets the officiating association commissioner and principals hash it out. I guess if was bad enough the VHSL would rule on it.

 

[Lafayette]

In the absence of clear video evidence refuting what the game official stated that he witnessed, it must be upheld on appeal.

It's as simple as this, either a kick occurred, or it didn't. If it occurred, (and at this point as far as we know, it did occur), it's "fighting" and it's a three game suspension.

As explained to me, there can be no reduction in the penalty. It's either three games or it didn't occur.

Probably a waste of time to appeal then. Thank god real law doesn't operate in a black and white view as this. Guess the lineman is out until the Region A final, the fourth game from now.

 

[Lafayette]

There is a provision where the two prinipals of the schools involved can discuss the matter and if the video shows the penalty is too harsh for the foul the ejection can be upheld, but the penalty removed or the ejection can be removed period. But only if, the offended school agrees.

I know this for a fact, because it happened to my crew this past spring. The ruling was deemed correct, the ejection upheld, but the principals waived the mandatory suspension.

The VHSL suprinsingly lets the officiating association commissioner and principals hash it out. I guess if was bad enough the VHSL would rule on it.

Thanks for this insight and personal case. It will be interesting if a fellow Bay Rivers team- Poquoson agrees or not. Like I stated it was not so egregious that any of us in the stands saw it and it affects the player in the playoffs which every BRD team wants their fellow members to do their best. At the end of the game the players of both teams on the field congratulated each other immediately on the line of scrimmage. It was unusual and honest show of respect on both sides. No animosity at all.

 

[LunchPailD]

Probably a waste of time to appeal then. Thank god real law doesn't operate in a black and white view as this. Guess the lineman is out until the Region A final, the fourth game from now.

At what point does the onus shift from the player attempting intentional harm on another to the VHSL for enforcing it’s clearly defined rules that the coaches and players (including the offender) are all well aware of? They are cracking down hard on fighting, as they should because it’s a huge liability issue. What if that player made direct contact with his cleat and permanently injured someone? This is a zero tolerance policy, and rightfully so. There’s no place for these actions in athletics.

What you have to understand is this is a player safety issue. That is much more important than any game, playoff or not.

 

[Lafayette]

At what point does the onus shift from the player attempting intentional harm on another to the VHSL for enforcing it’s clearly defined rules that the coaches and players (including the offender) are all well aware of? They are cracking down hard on fighting, as they should because it’s a huge liability issue. What if that player made direct contact with his cleat and permanently injured someone? This is a zero tolerance policy, and rightfully so. There’s no place for these actions in athletics.

What you have to understand is this is a player safety issue. That is much more important than any game, playoff or not.

We will see if the principles of Lafayette and Poquoson feel the act in a pile up during a fumble warrants a 3 game suspension or not. Even in public law zero tolerance sentencing terms are scorned.

 

[DinwiddieProud]

My guess, Lafayette, is if there is any useful film of the incident, it will boil down to, did he target the player directly, or was it just a reaction to being in the middle of a scrum? If there was even a question of it being deliberate, then I think it has to be a three game penalty.

If it looks like it was accidental, even if he was kicking to get in position to reach the ball or just get himself righted, then I think he will get the benefit of the doubt.

I have no doubt that the two Principals, in fact the AD's and probably the Head Coaches, will do a fair, honest, and professional analysis, and the outcome will reflect this.

 

[Lafayette]

My guess, Lafayette, is if there is any useful film of the incident, it will boil down to, did he target the player directly, or was it just a reaction to being in the middle of a scrum? If there was even a question of it being deliberate, then I think it has to be a three game penalty.

If it looks like it was accidental, even if he was kicking to get in position to reach the ball or just get himself righted, then I think he will get the benefit of the doubt.

I have no doubt that the two Principals, in fact the AD's and probably the Head Coaches, will do a fair, honest, and professional analysis, and the outcome will reflect this.

I agree DP/ if intentional out 3 games. I don't know but seeing the pile up I am thinking someone pulled his leg to get him away from the ball and pile and he reacted by kicking whoever was pulling his leg. I only say this because he was not standing but lying down somewhere in that scrum. I would expect some decision (hopefully the film shows enough/ it was around the 40 yard line on the press box side) in the next week. No big deal this week, struggling Grafton with one win.

 

[DinwiddieProud]

Is he a senior?

 

[Lafayette]

Is he a senior?

Yes-

 

[DinwiddieProud]

Man, that makes it tough. I guess the team will have an added incentive to make it to playoff game three, at least. (Assuming the suspension is upheld).

Man, ain't you glad it's not a football Friday night? It's pouring again here in Dinwiddie and the temp is headed "down like Joe Frazier"! (As BN is fond of saying, LOL!)

 

[Lafayette]

Raining hard here too. 47 by morning. Yes, if the suspension sticks it will be one motivated team with a real attitude. If KF loses to Oscar Smith as forecasted on Friday, we should get the #1 which will help.

 

[Twobyfour]

From what I have witnessed, many suspensions have been reduced on appeal or worked out between the schools administrator. Mostly because of video evidence. If you have honestly described the situation I would be very sursprised if they did not reduce this suspension. Yes they are cracking down, but they are also being very fair about the punishment from what I have seen. Not often I agree with anything VHSL does, but they seem to have a good handle on this.