Meadowbrook 62 Oak Hill 13 Round 1 Region 19 2018

Slothman
Riding the Bench
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2018 7:58 pm

Re: Region 19 #6 Oak Hill @ #3 Meadowbrook

Post by Slothman » Sun Oct 28, 2018 11:23 am

Good luck Oaks .



packers80
Freshman Team
Posts: 234
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:13 pm

Re: Region 19 #6 Oak Hill @ #3 Meadowbrook

Post by packers80 » Sun Oct 28, 2018 11:46 am

Good luck oaks.
Every day is a holiday and every meal is a feast

greygoose
S
Posts: 1807
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 12:15 pm

Re: Week 11: Oak Hill at Meadowbrook

Post by greygoose » Sun Oct 28, 2018 9:48 pm

VetteMan wrote:
Sat Oct 27, 2018 5:44 pm
I think his name is Clutters. I was just told that he was hurt on OH's first offensive play,and that he did not return to the game.
Clusters #32, if the injury is exactly what I heard he's out. He's HUGE for them both offensively and defensively, just don't think they'll pull this out without him. Meadowbrook played a superior schedule and lost close games to some really good teams. Going with Meadowbrook by 3-4 scores

countywide35
All Conference
Posts: 748
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:38 am

Re: Region 19 #6 Oak Hill @ #3 Meadowbrook

Post by countywide35 » Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:48 am

good luck Oaks. Hope you silence all the ones that don't believe you can. Make SEO proud!!

E High
Freshman Team
Posts: 147
Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 7:26 pm

Re: Region 19 #6 Oak Hill @ #3 Meadowbrook

Post by E High » Mon Oct 29, 2018 1:03 pm

Meadowbrook wins first 2 playoff games, then on to Johnstown-Monroe. That’s a very tough one. Good luck to all !

Paladin
SEOP
Posts: 3337
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 3:13 pm
Location: Warren-Youngstown, Ohio metro area

Re: Region 19 #6 Oak Hill @ #3 Meadowbrook

Post by Paladin » Mon Oct 29, 2018 2:06 pm

Colts in a rout.
Have gun, will travel

carbon_dated
All Conference
Posts: 862
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 7:58 pm

Re: Region 19 #6 Oak Hill @ #3 Meadowbrook

Post by carbon_dated » Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:55 pm

Colts should prevail. Have great talent at skill positions.

VetteMan
All State
Posts: 1155
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2018 1:58 pm

Re: Week 11: Oak Hill at Meadowbrook

Post by VetteMan » Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:30 pm

greygoose wrote:
Sun Oct 28, 2018 9:48 pm
VetteMan wrote:
Sat Oct 27, 2018 5:44 pm
I think his name is Clutters. I was just told that he was hurt on OH's first offensive play,and that he did not return to the game.
Clusters #32, if the injury is exactly what I heard he's out. He's HUGE for them both offensively and defensively, just don't think they'll pull this out without him. Meadowbrook played a superior schedule and lost close games to some really good teams. Going with Meadowbrook by 3-4 scores
If losing your best running back is not bad enough, the fact that you're 98% running team, I'm afraid this one will get ugly pretty quick.

teach1coach2
Varsity
Posts: 675
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 11:11 pm

Re: Region 19 #6 Oak Hill @ #3 Meadowbrook

Post by teach1coach2 » Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:52 pm

Here is the Meadowbrook - Cambridge game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoVnNnlnbng

The onside kick that almost turned into a brawl is 1:03.30
Never heard a microphoned ref before say something like there are too many personal fouls on the play and we don't know the players numbers so no one is ejected.

bleed_blue
JV Team
Posts: 288
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 10:52 am

Re: Week 11: Oak Hill at Meadowbrook

Post by bleed_blue » Mon Oct 29, 2018 10:47 pm

falcon1 wrote:
Sat Oct 27, 2018 10:52 pm
packers80 wrote:
Sat Oct 27, 2018 7:54 pm
Meadowbrook will win but don't trash the oaks because you beat them then you laid an egg when you had to play big boy football. Go oaks in week 11, because,mumford aint.
You’ll be playing big boy football next year!
And will still have more success than Minford.

Brutus87
Waterboy
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:03 pm

Re: Region 19 #6 Oak Hill @ #3 Meadowbrook

Post by Brutus87 » Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:18 pm

teach1coach2 wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:52 pm
Here is the Meadowbrook - Cambridge game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoVnNnlnbng

The onside kick that almost turned into a brawl is 1:03.30
Never heard a microphoned ref before say something like there are too many personal fouls on the play and we don't know the players numbers so no one is ejected.
The onside kick hit was two kids diving for a ball and was a 50 50 call. Definitely not an ejection situation. But there were 30 players from cambridge on the field which would have required a lot of ejections. It was a hot mess. Took 10 mins or more to get the game going again.

CheeseBurger
Riding the Bench
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:55 pm

Re: Region 19 #6 Oak Hill @ #3 Meadowbrook

Post by CheeseBurger » Tue Oct 30, 2018 5:50 pm

Brutus87 wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:18 pm
teach1coach2 wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:52 pm
Here is the Meadowbrook - Cambridge game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoVnNnlnbng

The onside kick that almost turned into a brawl is 1:03.30
Never heard a microphoned ref before say something like there are too many personal fouls on the play and we don't know the players numbers so no one is ejected.
The onside kick hit was two kids diving for a ball and was a 50 50 call. Definitely not an ejection situation. But there were 30 players from cambridge on the field which would have required a lot of ejections. It was a hot mess. Took 10 mins or more to get the game going again.
Couldn’t sleep last night I watched the game Oaks are gonna have a tough time! Get out there and get after it big uglies!

23tdb
Waterboy
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:08 am

Re: Region 19 #6 Oak Hill @ #3 Meadowbrook

Post by 23tdb » Wed Oct 31, 2018 9:02 am

Oak hill has two very quick running backs, but they cannot pass. #34 Chandler and #20 Smith are shorter but very quick backs. If the colts shut them down it could be a long ride home for the oaks.

BobcatQB
Riding the Bench
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 8:47 am

Re: Region 19 #6 Oak Hill @ #3 Meadowbrook

Post by BobcatQB » Wed Oct 31, 2018 3:22 pm

teach1coach2 wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:52 pm
Here is the Meadowbrook - Cambridge game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoVnNnlnbng

The onside kick that almost turned into a brawl is 1:03.30
Never heard a microphoned ref before say something like there are too many personal fouls on the play and we don't know the players numbers so no one is ejected.
Teach, that's not what the official said. He said the call was targeting but they didn't have a number so nobody was being ejected. The officiating crew was notified prior to the start of the game about this play. The team had run that in several other games and a player on the receiving team had been targeted (on several occassions) with no penalty, other than for not allowing the ball to travel 10 yards. Yes, on this film it is not as obvious and the player appears to be going for the ball so I can understand a no call (other than a penalty for ball not travelling 10 yards before contact). However, because of previous film showing that wasn't the case, the officials were notified prior to the game and the officials did call targeting which should have resulted in an ejection of the player who targeted.

Wallycpo1
Waterboy
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 8:15 am

Re: Region 19 #6 Oak Hill @ #3 Meadowbrook

Post by Wallycpo1 » Wed Oct 31, 2018 4:14 pm

Did I read 510 yards on the ground in OH first game of the season? Was there even another team on the field?

UrbanFMeyer
Waterboy
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2018 8:03 pm

Re: Region 19 #6 Oak Hill @ #3 Meadowbrook

Post by UrbanFMeyer » Wed Oct 31, 2018 5:06 pm

:!:
BobcatQB wrote:
Wed Oct 31, 2018 3:22 pm
teach1coach2 wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:52 pm
Here is the Meadowbrook - Cambridge game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoVnNnlnbng

The onside kick that almost turned into a brawl is 1:03.30
Never heard a microphoned ref before say something like there are too many personal fouls on the play and we don't know the players numbers so no one is ejected.
Teach, that's not what the official said. He said the call was targeting but they didn't have a number so nobody was being ejected. The officiating crew was notified prior to the start of the game about this play. The team had run that in several other games and a player on the receiving team had been targeted (on several occassions) with no penalty, other than for not allowing the ball to travel 10 yards. Yes, on this film it is not as obvious and the player appears to be going for the ball so I can understand a no call (other than a penalty for ball not travelling 10 yards before contact). However, because of previous film showing that wasn't the case, the officials were notified prior to the game and the officials did call targeting which should have resulted in an ejection of the player who targeted.
Here we go :roll:

Brutus87
Waterboy
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:03 pm

Re: Region 19 #6 Oak Hill @ #3 Meadowbrook

Post by Brutus87 » Wed Oct 31, 2018 5:14 pm

BobcatQB wrote:
Wed Oct 31, 2018 3:22 pm
teach1coach2 wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:52 pm
Here is the Meadowbrook - Cambridge game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoVnNnlnbng

The onside kick that almost turned into a brawl is 1:03.30
Never heard a microphoned ref before say something like there are too many personal fouls on the play and we don't know the players numbers so no one is ejected.
Teach, that's not what the official said. He said the call was targeting but they didn't have a number so nobody was being ejected. The officiating crew was notified prior to the start of the game about this play. The team had run that in several other games and a player on the receiving team had been targeted (on several occassions) with no penalty, other than for not allowing the ball to travel 10 yards. Yes, on this film it is not as obvious and the player appears to be going for the ball so I can understand a no call (other than a penalty for ball not travelling 10 yards before contact). However, because of previous film showing that wasn't the case, the officials were notified prior to the game and the officials did call targeting which should have resulted in an ejection of the player who targeted.
So an uncalled penalty from a previous game should dictate that THIS play was a penalty and targeting? Makes zero sense. But one thing you are forgeting is the 30 blue team players on the field and ZERO bench players from the colts were on the field. So we trade one guy for your 20 ejections.
It was NOT a cheap shot. It was two guys going for the football. Also because the official announced it warranted an ejection doesn't mean he is correct.
You said it yourself it didn't look like it was targeting and I'm pretty sure past occurances have nothing to do with it.

Sour grapes?
Last edited by Brutus87 on Wed Oct 31, 2018 9:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.

VetteMan
All State
Posts: 1155
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2018 1:58 pm

Re: Region 19 #6 Oak Hill @ #3 Meadowbrook

Post by VetteMan » Wed Oct 31, 2018 5:17 pm

I don't know how many yards were given up, but I think it was against Chesapeake. I didn't see the game, but I think even the Chesapeake fans would tell you it was the worse game that the Peake has played in years. It must have shocked the Peake quite a bit, as they then turned around and played pretty good the rest of the year.

BobcatQB
Riding the Bench
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 8:47 am

Re: Region 19 #6 Oak Hill @ #3 Meadowbrook

Post by BobcatQB » Thu Nov 01, 2018 7:33 am

Brutus87 wrote:
Wed Oct 31, 2018 5:14 pm
BobcatQB wrote:
Wed Oct 31, 2018 3:22 pm
teach1coach2 wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:52 pm
Here is the Meadowbrook - Cambridge game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoVnNnlnbng

The onside kick that almost turned into a brawl is 1:03.30
Never heard a microphoned ref before say something like there are too many personal fouls on the play and we don't know the players numbers so no one is ejected.
Teach, that's not what the official said. He said the call was targeting but they didn't have a number so nobody was being ejected. The officiating crew was notified prior to the start of the game about this play. The team had run that in several other games and a player on the receiving team had been targeted (on several occassions) with no penalty, other than for not allowing the ball to travel 10 yards. Yes, on this film it is not as obvious and the player appears to be going for the ball so I can understand a no call (other than a penalty for ball not travelling 10 yards before contact). However, because of previous film showing that wasn't the case, the officials were notified prior to the game and the officials did call targeting which should have resulted in an ejection of the player who targeted.
So an uncalled penalty from a previous game should dictate that THIS play was a penalty and targeting? Makes zero sense. But one thing you are forgeting is the 30 blue team players on the field and ZERO bench players from the colts were on the field. So we trade one guy for your 20 ejections.
It was NOT a cheap shot. It was two guys going for the football. Also because the official announced it warranted an ejection doesn't mean he is correct.
You said it yourself it didn't look like it was targeting and I'm pretty sure past occurances have nothing to do with it.

Sour grapes?
The officials called targeting and a 15 yard penalty was enforced, so I don't understand why you're upset with me. I simply stated why the officials were made aware of the play prior to the game. Nowhere in my post did I say it was a cheap shot nor was I complaining about anything, just letting Teach know what the official said. Why so defensive? Relax. Good luck Sat.

Brutus87
Waterboy
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:03 pm

Re: Region 19 #6 Oak Hill @ #3 Meadowbrook

Post by Brutus87 » Thu Nov 01, 2018 8:03 am

BobcatQB wrote:
Thu Nov 01, 2018 7:33 am
Brutus87 wrote:
Wed Oct 31, 2018 5:14 pm
BobcatQB wrote:
Wed Oct 31, 2018 3:22 pm


Teach, that's not what the official said. He said the call was targeting but they didn't have a number so nobody was being ejected. The officiating crew was notified prior to the start of the game about this play. The team had run that in several other games and a player on the receiving team had been targeted (on several occassions) with no penalty, other than for not allowing the ball to travel 10 yards. Yes, on this film it is not as obvious and the player appears to be going for the ball so I can understand a no call (other than a penalty for ball not travelling 10 yards before contact). However, because of previous film showing that wasn't the case, the officials were notified prior to the game and the officials did call targeting which should have resulted in an ejection of the player who targeted.
So an uncalled penalty from a previous game should dictate that THIS play was a penalty and targeting? Makes zero sense. But one thing you are forgeting is the 30 blue team players on the field and ZERO bench players from the colts were on the field. So we trade one guy for your 20 ejections.
It was NOT a cheap shot. It was two guys going for the football. Also because the official announced it warranted an ejection doesn't mean he is correct.
You said it yourself it didn't look like it was targeting and I'm pretty sure past occurances have nothing to do with it.

Sour grapes?
The officials called targeting and a 15 yard penalty was enforced, so I don't understand why you're upset with me. I simply stated why the officials were made aware of the play prior to the game. Nowhere in my post did I say it was a cheap shot nor was I complaining about anything, just letting Teach know what the official said. Why so defensive? Relax. Good luck Sat.
Lol , I am not buying it. I wonder if you think the OHSAA should be notified of the hit? You know exactly what i am talking about. But moving on. Have a nice day.

BobcatQB
Riding the Bench
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 8:47 am

Re: Region 19 #6 Oak Hill @ #3 Meadowbrook

Post by BobcatQB » Thu Nov 01, 2018 8:17 am

Brutus87 wrote:
Thu Nov 01, 2018 8:03 am
BobcatQB wrote:
Thu Nov 01, 2018 7:33 am
Brutus87 wrote:
Wed Oct 31, 2018 5:14 pm


So an uncalled penalty from a previous game should dictate that THIS play was a penalty and targeting? Makes zero sense. But one thing you are forgeting is the 30 blue team players on the field and ZERO bench players from the colts were on the field. So we trade one guy for your 20 ejections.
It was NOT a cheap shot. It was two guys going for the football. Also because the official announced it warranted an ejection doesn't mean he is correct.
You said it yourself it didn't look like it was targeting and I'm pretty sure past occurances have nothing to do with it.

Sour grapes?
The officials called targeting and a 15 yard penalty was enforced, so I don't understand why you're upset with me. I simply stated why the officials were made aware of the play prior to the game. Nowhere in my post did I say it was a cheap shot nor was I complaining about anything, just letting Teach know what the official said. Why so defensive? Relax. Good luck Sat.
Lol , I am not buying it. I wonder if you think the OHSAA should be notified of the hit? You know exactly what i am talking about. But moving on. Have a nice day.
I absolutely said that after watching it live and knowing that they have done it before. After watching the film, I have no problem saying otherwise. You can't definitively tell if he was going for the ball or not from the film, so a no call for targeting is fine with me.

gator81
Waterboy
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2018 7:15 pm

Re: Region 19 #6 Oak Hill @ #3 Meadowbrook

Post by gator81 » Thu Nov 01, 2018 5:33 pm

6 wins 4 losses. BIG boy football?

Wallycpo1
Waterboy
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 8:15 am

Re: Region 19 #6 Oak Hill @ #3 Meadowbrook

Post by Wallycpo1 » Fri Nov 02, 2018 11:23 am

Colts all the way!

Proud_Pirate63
Varsity
Posts: 682
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2017 10:33 am
Location: Wheelersburg

Re: Region 19 #6 Oak Hill @ #3 Meadowbrook

Post by Proud_Pirate63 » Sat Nov 03, 2018 3:50 pm

Bring home the victory Oaks!!!

carbon_dated
All Conference
Posts: 862
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 7:58 pm

Re: Region 19 #6 Oak Hill @ #3 Meadowbrook

Post by carbon_dated » Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:04 pm

62-13 final

Post Reply