This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Disagree. I do agree the 2's should've been in earlier. That I blame the coaches for but once the 2's are in they should play just as hard as the 1's. Kids are taught in practice to give 110% on every play so now you're telling the kids to throttle down? That's garbage and unfair to the 2's who practice just as hard as the 1's.
This......the games are 12 minute quarters. Kids play the game and move on. Then the adults take over in their committees and argue about the score being too lopsided when the players are already over it. In these types of games when the backups get in they usually are trying harder than the starters to impress.
See this is where the coach is wrong. Starters should've been pulled way before that. Can't expect the subs to throttle down.
I agree. I was just pointing more to how arbitrary and stupid the rule is. The starting QB scored in the 4th to put them up by 41. If their backups hadn't been good enough to score it wouldn't have been up for review. That changes nothing about the starters scoring to go up 41 IMO. It's a stupid rule.
In PA if the lead is 35 (IIRC) or more at halftime, there's a continuous clock in the second half.
You are still glossing over the fact that they are leaving lots of time on the play clock. There is literally zero excuse for that. The coach has complete control of that. He could simply spend more time talking to the QB on the sideline and this would still allow them to run no huddle formation if for some reason that was a big concern.
If you change the style of play for your subs they don't get the work they need in a game situation. The kids on the field should never have to play less than their max effort in fear of running up a score. Unfortunately that is what this type of rule actually teaches. It is like a soccer team playing keep away from a team to try not score any more goals. To me that is more humiliating than just playing the game and scoring accordingly.
You don't actually mean this. You obviously wouldn't advocate that they run any deep outs so the play calling is probably already changed.
Every time a player steps on the field they should play all out and try to score once the ball is snapped. If you take that away then why even play?
I agree with this.
They tried this a little too late they kneeled to keep it at 48. I found this part of the video to be the funniest. They scored. Lots of leaping chest bumps later and they are lining up to kick and then the qb got word from the coach to kneel instead of kick. So the kicker awkwardly moves back into victory formation and barely gets set before the snap.
Our HSFB team has this dilemma half the weeks and I can tell you there are things you aren’t factoring in. When it comes down to it, we try to use all backups as much as possible in blowouts, but most HS teams don’t have underclassmen that belong playing against varsity starters.
The winning team only scored 14 points in the second half. It seems highly likely to me, that they had the back ups in at that point.
Exactly. Especially for smaller schools (Class A in PA) a lot of these 9th and even a lot of 10th graders shouldn't be on the field. My town's two schools combined starting this season because they both were getting dangerously close to not being able to field a team. We're talking like 25-28 kids.
So since this is in Italy, I am assuming when they say it's football, it's really soccer? 27-0 in a soccer game is ridiculous. When the teams are that different in skill level, just stop the game early. It is no longer a competitive event.
I believe it's soccer also. Would that be the equivalent of an American football team beating another roughly 160 to 0?
I see this in HS hockey on occasion ... teams get more upset when the superior opponent looks like they're not trying.
