[zebra295]

Okay Mr. JRutledge. I think that was very good what you just wrote because you justified your opinion and it is reasonable for you to feel that you might have been "misled" on those two big A-11 issues and therefore in your opinion Kurt is a "Liar".

But If I may take the other side and entertain this possibility for a just a minute. You have a high school coach who comes up with a new offense and makes the effort to submit it to the local section and the FED for what he thinks is "approval" to run this offense in the scrimmage kick formation, from the powers that be. And it is a fact that technically he didn't need to submit anything at all because according to the letter of the rule, it could be run "legally".

So this coach, who probably has never submitted something like this to the FED before, and therefore could be considered a "novice in the practice of submitting an offense for approval by the FED", gets a reply that as far as they are concerned it is "legal and can be run".

Then probably happy his offense was given what he thinks is "approval" (DEF per above: to give formal or official sanction to), tells others in the football community his offense was "approved" by the FED.

BUT! For those who are experts in the inner workings of the FED, the offense was really only declared "legal" to run and not "approved", making him totally wrong to those in the know.

WHICH! Caused resentment amongst the experts and got everyone off on the wrong foot, causing highly charged and un-gentlemanly chat room exchanges over time, which has has led us to where we are today! ---- Of course, in addition to that "intent" thing. But could "intent" ever get discussed because nobody could get past the anger over the "legal" thing?

Did a simple mis-understanding of the definition of whether the offense was declared "legal" or "approved" cause all this?


Maybe Obama has a good Hyena BBQ recipe. . .