Week 8

[RockNation]

Rules question very critical to next week's game. VULCAN LB #16 ISRAEL XAVIER was ejected in the 3rd qtr for two unsportsmanlike penalties. Is he disqualified for SRU ? Very important part of the defense.

Yes he should be out next week

[Ballin51]

Outside of the Win, very uneventful game. Minus crazy decision DB took. But on that first PI on Streater how they call PI when he went for the ball n they were out of bounds? Also our guys held their attitudes n check. Think so? Agree glad Tort took starters out early this time.

[CALUPA69]

Yes he should be out next week

Yes he "should" be out OR by rule he will be out ?

[IUPbigINDIANS]

That goes back a long way. Keep in mind this IUP/Cal thing is pretty young (historically speaking). Cal was just a yearly smackdown game for about 35 straight years prior to the Angelo era.

Clarion and SRU are very close, geographically speaking. I don't think SRU actually views them as any kind of football rival.

[Dirty Harry]

Bloomsburg over Lock Haven 54-27. First and maybe only home win for the Huskies this year. I do NOT like the all grey uniforms on Bloom. Much prefer the maroon. Lock Haven's black helmets didn't really go with their uniforms. Ugly game for the fashion police.

M??????

Meanwhile, back to the game. Doesn't look like it was close.

[WarriorVoice]

ESU kicker Jordan Walters nailed a 56-yarder at the end of the first half, which is an ESU record. WCU leads 14-13 at halftime.

Walters kick is a conference record, a stadium record, a personal record, and the longest FG in DII this season. The Warriors are on the rise and proved it today against a good West Chester team. The D held the Rams rushing attack to 93 yards and for the second straight week, the Offense outgained their opponent. Winning will come as the talent matures. This is a very young team. Growing pains happen, and the Warriors will be better for it.

[RockNation]

Yes he "should" be out OR by rule he will be out ?

with the officiating decisions we've witnessed this year, I dont know what is up and down anymore.

[IUPbigINDIANS]

with the officiating decisions we've witnessed this year, I dont know what is up and down anymore.

Why WOULDN'T he be out ? That rule is clear, correct?

[CALUPA69]

Why WOULDN'T he be out ? That rule is clear, correct?

I've never seen the rule. The PSAC web site gives me a migraine. Just asking if anyone of the detail oriented folks familiar with conference rules can quote chapter and verse. I fear you are right but would like those fears confirmed. Thanks.

[ctrabs74]

[CALUPA69]

Thanks for the info. Hope the 2nd half isn't too late.

[ctrabs74]

Thanks for the info. Hope the 2nd half isn't too late.

I take that back. This is from the PSAC's Sportsmanship Policy:

8. Penalties
a. Specifically and without limitation, the Commissioner has the authority to take any one or more of the following actions:
(i) publicly or privately reprimand any participant;

(ii) forfeit any Events or competitions;

(iii) suspend or expel any person from attendance or participation in one or more Events; or

(iv) pay a fine to the Conference (not to exceed $1,000) for each occurrence of unsportsmanlike or inappropriate conduct (fines will be directed to an institution and not individuals).

b. NCAA in-game sports rules and policies will be enforced, adhered to and followed. In instances of flagrant misconduct, regardless of circumstance, all individuals involved shall receive a minimum penalty of a suspension from one or more Events. Flagrant misconduct shall include, but not be limited to, striking or attempting to strike (e.g., kicking, hitting, throwing objects) an official, coach, player or spectator.

c. At a minimum, student-athletes ejected from Events for unsporting behavior by officials will be subjected to a penalty of a one-Event suspension. A second ejection of a student-athlete will result in a two-Event suspension and a third ejection will result in a season long suspension.

d. Repeat violations by an individual, team or institution will be subjected to increasingly greater penalties.

As I recall, the old rule used to be if a player was ejected for targeting in a PSAC game, the player was suspended for the entire next game. After the first or second year of the targeting rule (either 2015 or 2016, I forget), the coaches objected and got the PSAC to change the rule to match the NCAA policy (ejected in first half, miss the rest of the game and eligible for the next game; ejected in second half, miss first half of next game), which, in my opinion, is ridiculous. For some reason, I thought ejections for unsportsmanlike conduct was the same way.

Regardless, 16 for Cal deserves to sit out the entire next game, regardless of what the league's official policy is. If that doesn't happen, then that just tells me the league's sportsmanship policy is, to be blunt, a joke.

[ctrabs74]

That impression pretty much changed after losing last year's HC game to GANNON. I hoped with a season under his belt and with a reasonable learning curve he might get back on track but truthfully he's regressed. Maybe it's just freshness but the team seems crisper and more enthusiastic with DALE. If you get a chance to watch their last 67 yd drive it seemed the handoffs to BROWN were much crisper, the line was very hyped and MC had no answer for a run game that had been held to 100 yds prior to then. My guess is MITCHELL starts but he's on a very short leash. If the offense looks like it did UNDER him today, he will not get 2+ qtrs of playing time.

If Dunn decides to start Mitchell over Dale in what could be a game critical to whatever slim playoff chances the Vulcans have in the Slippery Rock game, then that raises a lot of questions in my mind as to whether this coaching direction is the right one for Cal.

[CALUPA69]

I take that back. This is from the PSAC's Sportsmanship Policy:

8. Penalties
a. Specifically and without limitation, the Commissioner has the authority to take any one or more of the following actions:
(i) publicly or privately reprimand any participant;

(ii) forfeit any Events or competitions;

(iii) suspend or expel any person from attendance or participation in one or more Events; or

(iv) pay a fine to the Conference (not to exceed $1,000) for each occurrence of unsportsmanlike or inappropriate conduct (fines will be directed to an institution and not individuals).

b. NCAA in-game sports rules and policies will be enforced, adhered to and followed. In instances of flagrant misconduct, regardless of circumstance, all individuals involved shall receive a minimum penalty of a suspension from one or more Events. Flagrant misconduct shall include, but not be limited to, striking or attempting to strike (e.g., kicking, hitting, throwing objects) an official, coach, player or spectator.

c. At a minimum, student-athletes ejected from Events for unsporting behavior by officials will be subjected to a penalty of a one-Event suspension. A second ejection of a student-athlete will result in a two-Event suspension and a third ejection will result in a season long suspension.

d. Repeat violations by an individual, team or institution will be subjected to increasingly greater penalties.

As I recall, the old rule used to be if a player was ejected for targeting in a PSAC game, the player was suspended for the entire next game. After the first or second year of the targeting rule (either 2015 or 2016, I forget), the coaches objected and got the PSAC to change the rule to match the NCAA policy (ejected in first half, miss the rest of the game and eligible for the next game; ejected in second half, miss first half of next game), which, in my opinion, is ridiculous. For some reason, I thought ejections for unsportsmanlike conduct was the same way.

Regardless, 16 for Cal deserves to sit out the entire next game, regardless of what the league's official policy is. If that doesn't happen, then that just tells me the league's sportsmanship policy is, to be blunt, a joke.

Maybe we'll get an answer from the Coach on his show this week. Not likely to know the QB answer until next Saturday.

[IUPbigINDIANS]

Maybe we'll get an answer from the Coach on his show this week. Not likely to know the QB answer until next Saturday.

If ejected for targeting in the second half, you sit the first half of the next game.

Getting ejected for unsportsmanlike ... sure reads likes he'll be sitting this week.

If so, that's a huge loss for the Cal defense.