Bullrush Tournament

First of all, your intent means nothing because you did cheat. Yes TBD there were rules saying if you were not on the roster sent in, you couldn't play. So yes they cheated. There's nothing for me to get over, I'm not the one trying to deny I cheated when I've been blatantly caught. And Nate, It's hard to say "because we beat them the last two times we would have this time." Verona had lost handily to Waunakee prior, then came out and beat them. But of course I'm "running my mouth" because I'm spouting what the tournament rules state and ideas of logic not understandable by your higher Stoughton education. So please, carry on with your denial of cheating.

can we just drop us? even with the middleton players it was close. we also had about 5 shots on the outside of the net. hummel and kelso didn't lose that game for janesville, janesville did. congrats to arrowhead on making the long drive back to minnesota that much longer

Butters wrote:

Nate wrote:

Hummel scored 2 and Kelso scored 1. That was all they did. Either way we still would have beaten you guys. I like how your whole team was complaining.

Without this quote not a word about Stoughton is said. Made you and Stoughton as a whole sound arrogant. Makes people want to magnify your decisions more and more. And unfortunately you did cheat, so yes, that gives us the right to criticize or "bash" that decision.

if by cheat you mean "break the rules" you should find a copy of the bullrush ones before 5/17/2008 because i know they are changing after that game.

Nate wrote:

replied to The Big Dipper's message stating he wanted to play and told him we have an open spot. I have no idea how Hummel and Kelso came into the picture. All honesty, i'm sorry about all this. But it's really low how a few of you jumped to conclusions before even thinking about it. Why would we go out and recruit players to beat a team we've already best twice(no offense)? T

First off, i over heard hummel saying he was playing with you hours before you guys played janesville. So that was a lie of you not knowing he was playing. And just because you beat a team twice, doesn't mean your going to beat them a third time. You know how many freaking teams lose twice them win later on in the same season. Look at last years super bowl. They beat the 2nd team in history to go 16-0. What is driving me nuts is how you are saying without them you were said you would win for sure. But its not for sure in any way, because no one knows what really could had happen. I saw 54 limping on attack the whole game, and i know hes a good attack. I saw a weak midfield. So saying you were going to win for sure when your team has a losing record is kind of a paradox. Ya you beat them twice, so beat them again, then say you are the better team. Its not like janesville is up there to brag about beating they are 22nd on laxpower. Good job you beat a first year varsity team. They showed tons of class all year round. They got handed to in games vs SP, Waunakee, Kettle M, Wausua, but you know what they still showed huge class. It was a good game. I don't really see a problem anymore.

Stoughton: Exemplifying Class Since 2003

just because hummel talks to our coach doesnt mean everyone on the team knows hes playing with us.

Jack wrote:

Stoughton: Exemplifying Class Since 2003

weve been classy this year, to my best knowledge(as a midfield I dont know what the attacks and Dpoles are saying when we are on the other end of hte field.) Really, just playing to play doesnt bring out the worst in anyone.

RiDE wrote:

if by cheat you mean "break the rules" you should find a copy of the bullrush ones before 5/17/2008 because i know they are changing after that game.

By cheat I mean you broke this rule of the Bullrush tourney: "At least one month prior to the tournament we must have completed roster from each team." - Quoted directly from the Bullrush Information document off of veronalacrosse.com. Ignoring the fact that you guys cheated to win, you also put Verona's club at HUGE liability. The reasoning for those rosters is so they can verify that every player is insured. And no, that document has not changed since then.

link?

http://files.leagueathletics.com/Text/Documents/2146/15338.doc

that doesnt have hte month ahead rule, it says that more rules will be posted 2 weeks prior to tourney date, which is way to late for a 1 month rule on roster verification.

Can you not read then?
"Team Rosters: At least one month prior to the tournament we must have completed roster from each team. This will ensure that our programs are complete, and gives us the information we need to provide insurance for the players. Please use the form provided to make sure that we have the required information. "

there was 1 min left in the period, it looked like hte same rule list i found, but i guess it was extended, my error. ill find the link so it doesnt look like im full of it.

Ok, argument over. Everyone's gotten their 2 cents in. Let's stop spoiling a great tournament victory by Arrowhead.

it was a great victory, i was the one standing up with all the press guys on top of the bleachers. im sunburned

RiDE wrote:

it was a great victory, i was the one standing up with all the press guys on top of the bleachers. im sunburned

Can someone clarify me who they where, and if you can obtain those videos. I have heard they are on FSN, then i have heard they are on charter on demand, i think the company was called, when we were young productions, but anyone know anything about it?

i was talking to the guys up there at halftime. all 3 cameras and the announcer were all reporting for the WIAA network which is with charter. i was really suprised that more people werent watchign from up there. it was a much better angle than from the ground.

WIAA interest? is there anything to that?

From what I've heard the WIAA is very aware of the growth of lacrosse in the state. It's not even a matter of time before it grows anymore, it's a matter of time before a female sport becomes big enough because for WIAA to take over lacrosse it would have to take on a female sport as well. Well that's if I'm not mistaken.

Butters that is correct, but they could also just take up boys lacrosse(since its way ahead of girls) and just allow girls to play on boys teams until girls lacrosse catches up.

I would also like to say thanks to relicdavis for the pics

Sweet picture right there.

It's a pretty sweet picture accept the goalie isn't even in goal....lol....this was when their goalie was serving a penalty.

Lol interesting, yea I think the angle of the shot is playing tricks though cause the ball looks like it will be a good 5 feet wide of the goal to the left along with the 'goalie' looking like hes out of the goal to the left.

badingin wrote:

It's a pretty sweet picture accept the goalie isn't even in goal....lol....this was when their goalie was serving a penalty.

No that was their starting goalie, he did get off twice at times though to serve penalties that he committed, arrowhead didnt get a shot on net during the 2nd goalie in the net, an attack in net and no shots during that time, shouldve just been shooting everywhere on an attack in net, but yeah nice pictures man.

When the goalie came out and hit the arrowhead kid.









Another one of the boxer guy