Tie Declared!!!!

eastisbest

Well-known member
back in the day- coaches would run football players for hours in 115* heat, full pads, no water breaks. We know better than that now. back in the day you would get your bell rung and be back in the game next play even if you didn't know what day it was or your own name. We know better than that now. You call it policing, I call it progress. The coaches are regulated because their passion and (as another poster put it) single-minded pursuit of the W doesn't always put them in the frame of mind (notice I didn't say "evil" as you put it) them to make the decisions that need to be made in the heat of the battle. You want to have an intelligent discussion but people who are looking out for these teenage athletes are called skirt wearers- brilliant
The kid doesn't care. All he wants is his hissy fit because the decision didn't fit into some ideal made for tv world. Something exceptional happened here and it's going over his head. Too often people sit idly by, afraid to make the tough decision. We have only as evidence the reasons for the decision, the words right out of the mouths of the coaches and Ross. We can presume what we want but it is what it is.

It was a bit of history for those kids, the schools and their fans that they can celebrate or they can turn into a source of bitterness and what might have been. I'd suggest the former.

As is so often said when a ref makes a "game deciding" call against a team, it was their fault for putting themselves in that position. If some St I or Northview fans (or God forbid, players and coaches) want to be bitter, then they should just consider that.

Much better to celebrate.
 

Wadz06

Active member
Obviously you are unable to understand English. "Bound by the rules on how the game is played" ON THE ICE. He CANNOT have ordered a shootout by to NFHS rules to which the OHSAA complies, and a resumption of play at a later time has already been refuted.
Tom you keep talking but have no answers as to how this should have been resolved. Resumption of play could have happened "for safety reasons" but maybe OSHAA put the price tag above that. It could have happened. Please come up with solutions instead of babble. Stick to football please..
 

eastisbest

Well-known member
Tom you keep talking but have no answers as to how this should have been resolved. Resumption of play could have happened "for safety reasons" but maybe OSHAA put the price tag above that. It could have happened. Please come up with solutions instead of babble. Stick to football please..
He did, I did, many have. It WAS resolved. Those not liking the resolution have yet to come up with better. They just have wishful thinking that doesn't acknowledge the difficulties in place. Worked with a guy like that. He thought just by saying, "make it better," meant that it could be made better. I told him (according to theory) "God couldn't make it better." Didn't go well but his response was the typical response of those who cannot accept the consequences of their inactions or their actions. His response was typical of those whose decisions do not affect others or who ignore the affects on others. I'm seeing similar here.

All we have is the word of the Admins and the coaches with nothing to counter, that the situation was posing a dangerous health risk. You have no evidence as to whether or not this is correct or what other unstated factors existed. If the SCHOOLS wanted to meet up to get a final resolution, I do not think there is anything OHSAA could do but withhold OHSAA recognition. The SCHOOLs apparently have decided not to do this. Heck, the kids could do it themselves. As I've said, the lake is frozen. It could be an annual, raise lots of money for charity. There are tons of resolutions that do not involve OHSAA.

I think you'd agree that in any endeavor, it is prohibitively expensive to prepare for every contingency? I've yet to hear from anyone of a simple, affordable solution to that night other than play until there was a clear winner, no matter how long or how many hurt. Dehydration is no laughing matter and it's affects do not go away over night. I can cause permanent damage, brain damage and it can kill. It's solution is not, pouring in more liquid and salts. The solution is rest. This wasn't a matter of one team being better conditioned. A look at the photos shows exhausted kids, both sides. Once the need for adrenaline ran out, they were doubling over.

I agree that if this had happened in an earlier round, they may have had to make the expense. Given that it was the final, the powers, the schools apparently decided the expense was prohibitive. Unless they're willing to pony up the money so the schools can finish the contest, where exactly is the complaint of those that objected to the decision?
 

CatAlum

Active member
This wasn't a matter of one team being better conditioned. A look at the photos shows exhausted kids, both sides. Once the need for adrenaline ran out, they were doubling over.
I have no major complaint here because, ultimately, both schools accepted this outcome whether with reluctance or not. I do think your comment is a bit glib, though, and not entirely consistent with the facts as they have been explained to me. The reality is that one team spread the 600 or so minutes of playing time over a much smaller group of players than the other team. Based on what I have learned, both teams were not EQUALLY spent. So, while I don't think one had better conditioning than the other, the game took its toll differently based on coach's strategy. How things played out regarding PT in this state title game should be part of the discussion as rules for future similar situations are discussed.
 
Last edited:

Nature Boy

New member
back in the day- coaches would run football players for hours in 115* heat, full pads, no water breaks. We know better than that now. back in the day you would get your bell rung and be back in the game next play even if you didn't know what day it was or your own name. We know better than that now. You call it policing, I call it progress. The coaches are regulated because their passion and (as another poster put it) single-minded pursuit of the W doesn't always put them in the frame of mind (notice I didn't say "evil" as you put it) them to make the decisions that need to be made in the heat of the battle. You want to have an intelligent discussion but people who are looking out for these teenage athletes are called skirt wearers- brilliant
Back in the day no one knew any better. Not malice on the coaches part, not more so than women who smoked while pregnant in the 50s and earlier. People just didn't know the risks at that time.

Where is it written that the OHSAA, of all people, know better? Just like the NCAA, how often are they really looking out for the kids?

So what danger was there to kids who were fatigued? Fatigue is a part of athletics. What tangible danger would they have been exposed to?
 

Nature Boy

New member
The kid doesn't care. All he wants is his hissy fit because the decision didn't fit into some ideal made for tv world. Something exceptional happened here and it's going over his head. Too often people sit idly by, afraid to make the tough decision. We have only as evidence the reasons for the decision, the words right out of the mouths of the coaches and Ross. We can presume what we want but it is what it is.

It was a bit of history for those kids, the schools and their fans that they can celebrate or they can turn into a source of bitterness and what might have been. I'd suggest the former.

As is so often said when a ref makes a "game deciding" call against a team, it was their fault for putting themselves in that position. If some St I or Northview fans (or God forbid, players and coaches) want to be bitter, then they should just consider that.

Much better to celebrate.
Celebrate a tie? Seriously? And it was wondered why I call people skirt-wearers.

The biggest mistake was not continuing the game the next day. Even Ross admitted he never thought of that option. If true, how sad and inept on his part.
 

Wadz06

Active member
Celebrate a tie? Seriously? And it was wondered why I call people skirt-wearers.

The biggest mistake was not continuing the game the next day. Even Ross admitted he never thought of that option. If true, how sad and inept on his part.
Well said sir, it is that easy. Nobody expects that result to change we just expect better decision making in the future. And for all those tie lovers, thank you for Obama!
 

eastisbest

Well-known member
Originally Posted by eastisbest View Post
This wasn't a matter of one team being better conditioned. A look at the photos shows exhausted kids, both sides. Once the need for adrenaline ran out, they were doubling over.
I have no major complaint here because, ultimately, both schools accepted this outcome whether with reluctance or not. I do think your comment is a bit glib, though, and not entirely consistent with the facts as they have been explained to me. The reality is that one team spread the 600 or so minutes of playing time over a much smaller group of players than the other team. Based on what I have learned, both teams were not EQUALLY spent. So, while I don't think one had better conditioning than the other, the game took its toll differently based on coach's strategy. How things played out regarding PT in this state title game should be part of the discussion as rules for future similar situations are discussed.
How glib? It's a fact. I'm sure you've done something in your life on adrenaline and didn't feel the pain and damage until afterwards. And if done without oversight, someone to tell you to stop I bet you did more than damage, you came close to permanent or final damage. I know I've been there. The photos speak to what occurred amongst the "better" conditioned players after the game was stopped and I have to imagine the same for the other team.

As for your information on playing time, I won't doubt it. I think it's fantastic that one team was able to play the other even up for that long with fewer players. They were apparently, the better conditioned players, contrary to what has been previously implied.
 

eastisbest

Well-known member
Celebrate a tie? Seriously? And it was wondered why I call people skirt-wearers.
So how by your logic are kids, people in general not supposed to celebrate a win in the regionals? A conference championship? A win over a rival or a last second buzzer beater? All of these pale in comparison to getting to the state championship let alone still being tied after 7ot. Did you ever think that the only reason you can't consider the kids on both teams "winners" is your limited concept of the word? Aren't you promoting a rather perverted understanding of "everyone gets a trophy?" These are not just "participants."

If kids and fans who celebrate a 7OT tie in a state championship are "skirt-wearers," then those must be some pretty frilly panties you are wearing for having accomplished only sitting at your keyboard.:clap:
 

Nature Boy

New member
So how by your logic are kids, people in general not supposed to celebrate a win in the regionals? A conference championship? A win over a rival or a last second buzzer beater? All of these pale in comparison to getting to the state championship let alone still being tied after 7ot. Did you ever think that the only reason you can't consider the kids on both teams "winners" is your limited concept of the word? Aren't you promoting a rather perverted understanding of "everyone gets a trophy?" These are not just "participants."

If kids and fans who celebrate a 7OT tie in a state championship are "skirt-wearers," then those must be some pretty frilly panties you are wearing for having accomplished only sitting at your keyboard.:clap:
They are fine, even excellent, achievements. But, by definition, they do all fall short of a state championship. What, you think they are the equivalent? Please answer that.

Winners? Perhaps. State champs? Not this year. Again, by definition. Those players had achieved nothing more by the end of that game than they had at the beginning, and that is NOT what any of them went there for.
 

Wadz06

Active member
If this was such a great decision why didn't the cheers out number the book's because thats all I heard on TV. The only people who can decide to cheer for the tie or not, are the players who did everything they could on the ice to prevent it. I personally would like to see the change happen so it doesn't come to this again, because I believe they deserve more. OHSAA needs to continually improve which year after year they continue to do nothing.
 

CatAlum

Active member
As for your information on playing time, I won't doubt it. I think it's fantastic that one team was able to play the other even up for that long with fewer players. They were apparently, the better conditioned players, contrary to what has been previously implied.
I'm sure the administrators will do their best, but, if rules are set up to address fatigue/safety, there should be consideration (at least in this sport) to its unique nature...that is, that playing 2nd and 3rd and 4th strings is a regular part of the game and that, in the game that will have led to all of the talk about this, it appears that one team went deeper into their roster (and was likely less fatigued) than the other team. That would be an advantage to the deeper team, an "earned" advantage reflecting on their overall excellence as compared to their opponent, that could be taken away by shoddy "rulesmanship" or the fact that there were no rules and that a "feel" decision had to be made.

And certainly, one can foresee, going into the future, that coaches, once they learn of the rule, might utilize their bench in a way to react to that new rule. And I'm not suggesting that anyone "gamed" this situation. But it had its part in the decision to stop it.
 

Wadz06

Active member
All of those who agreed with the tie, have not offered any answers, only reasons why we should agree with them. Would like some answers please in your opinions.

1) What if it was a semi-final game or earlier round?

2) What if this happened in the game before Div I final and caused DI to be played 5 hours later, thus incurring extra $$$ for Ross?

Tom and East I look forward to your answer.
 

Nature Boy

New member
All of those who agreed with the tie, have not offered any answers, only reasons why we should agree with them. Would like some answers please in your opinions.

1) What if it was a semi-final game or earlier round?

2) What if this happened in the game before Div I final and caused DI to be played 5 hours later, thus incurring extra $$$ for Ross?

Tom and East I look forward to your answer.
Don't hold your breath.
 

tom_hsfootball_fan

Well-known member
So what danger was there to kids who were fatigued? Fatigue is a part of athletics. What tangible danger would they have been exposed to?
Again... a person who thinks they're a doctor. "Fatigue" doesn't cover 1/10th of the problems that real, actual dehydration causes. People think you're not dehydrated if you're not thirsty. WRONG. Ross did the right thing in stopping it. All we're arguing about now is whether it could have been restarted. Personally, I don't think you'll find 3 kids who really care about this by graduation time.
All of those who agreed with the tie, have not offered any answers, only reasons why we should agree with them. Would like some answers please in your opinions.
1) What if it was a semi-final game or earlier round?
2) What if this happened in the game before Div I final and caused DI to be played 5 hours later, thus incurring extra $$$ for Ross?
Tom and East I look forward to your answer.
I have no idea, nor do I care.
 

Nature Boy

New member
Again... a person who thinks they're a doctor. "Fatigue" doesn't cover 1/10th of the problems that real, actual dehydration causes. People think you're not dehydrated if you're not thirsty. WRONG. Ross did the right thing in stopping it. All we're arguing about now is whether it could have been restarted. Personally, I don't think you'll find 3 kids who really care about this by graduation time.

I have no idea, nor do I care.
On what basis do you say that? I asked a question, and get a stupid reply. Some of them might have been dehydrated, or not. Probably not the ones who barely played. Where did you ever hear or read confirmation of that? Or your the one playing doctor? Was he right to stop it that day? Perhaps. Was he wrong to simply call it a tie and walk away? ABSOLUTELY!

Nor do I care. What an ignorant response. Not to mention thoughtless and everything but insightful.
 

tom 48

Well-known member
Wow, did that go over your head. :shrug:
Please explain your erudite post. You were probably referring to the "Miracle on Ice" which was the US vs Russia in which he scored the winning goal. But, of course, that was not an overtime match nor was it the Gold medal game. If that was not the game, please let me know which game it was.I will give you time to think of a way to get yourself out of this situation.
 

Nature Boy

New member
Please explain your erudite post. You were probably referring to the "Miracle on Ice" which was the US vs Russia in which he scored the winning goal. But, of course, that was not an overtime match nor was it the Gold medal game. If that was not the game, please let me know which game it was.I will give you time to think of a way to get yourself out of this situation.
Have you always made lame attempts to flatter yourself?

My point was conceptual, that it is easy for Eruzione to find a non-existent silver lining in what happened to OTHERS but my guess is he would not have been nearly as accepting if some suit did that to him and his team.

Are you able to understand that now?
 

tom 48

Well-known member
Have you always made lame attempts to flatter yourself?

My point was conceptual, that it is easy for Eruzione to find a non-existent silver lining in what happened to OTHERS but my guess is he would not have been nearly as accepting if some suit did that to him and his team.

Are you able to understand that now?
Thank you for your explanation. It's a real stretch and totally irrelevant to the game on Saturday, but it was an explanation nonetheless. It was a nice gesture on his part. Now, I hope all of your anger and outrage over the tie have been expressed and you can go on with your life. Everyone else has gone on with theirs.
 

Nature Boy

New member
Thank you for your explanation. It's a real stretch and totally irrelevant to the game on Saturday, but it was an explanation nonetheless. It was a nice gesture on his part. Now, I hope all of your anger and outrage over the tie have been expressed and you can go on with your life. Everyone else has gone on with theirs.
But it is completely relevant to your post about Eruzione's comments. So what are you saying, that post you made was totally irrelevant? Don't be so hard on yourself.

If "everyone" else has moved on you would not still be posting.

So what would the suits have done if the same thing happened in an earlier round game? Oh yea, you don't care. Well, either that or you don't have anything to say that wouldn't stick your foot in your mouth.
 

tom 48

Well-known member
It is only you who haven't moved on. I merely posted a nice note from Mike Eruzione and you, who is still bitter about something, chose to make something negative of it. The game is over; you are the only one who can't reconcile yourself with the decision. My posts have been in response to your negativity. But, if you say I haven't moved on, I will. I hope you can do the same. Bye.
 
Celebrate a tie? Seriously? And it was wondered why I call people skirt-wearers.

The biggest mistake was not continuing the game the next day. Even Ross admitted he never thought of that option. If true, how sad and inept on his part.
Haha who is going to pay for two meals and another night of lodging for 60 people? Why should the OHSAA continue shelling out this money for maybe a few minutes of hockey
 

Nature Boy

New member
Haha who is going to pay for two meals and another night of lodging for 60 people? Why should the OHSAA continue shelling out this money for maybe a few minutes of hockey
Oh, I don't know, maybe because a wise ex-NFL player and coach once said "you play the game to win".

People shelled out millions of dollars in total for 93 second of Tyson beating Spinks. It was for a championship, NOT about the money. I have a hunch the parents of the player would have fed their own kids, that is what they have been doing all their lives anyway, so what is two more meals?
 

FairwoodKing

New member
Calling a tie after 7 overtimes was the right decision and I applaud the officials who called it. The students' safety means more than a trophy.
 
.
Top