|
Far be it from me to get back to reality, but as I've tried, apparently unsuccessfully, to get across to you from the very beginning, is that I have agreed that the best way to deal with this offense is to hold it tightly to the rules regarding formation requirements, shifts and motion.
What appears to have started this, seemingly endless exchange, was my suggestion that your divergence to using personal attacks and unfounded accusations against the proponents of this offence, rather than sticking to the football rule related components, detracted from your argument and was generating a negative perception. A simple suggestion, but you chose instead to rise up in indignation in response and start blasting away with all sorts of additional accusations and defensive arguments that are totally ancillary to the subject.
It wasn't a big deal, you just momentarily stepped over the line (of good taste) and the simple solution would have been to evaluate your comments, and hopefully realize you should step back without any comment or explanation being necessary. You elected, however, to take the discussion down a "who are you to tell me anything" road, which not surprisingly leads usually to nowhere. We took a long detour through the "Spirit of the Rule" discussion which, although a valid and important comcept in general, as it applied to this discussion turned out to be pure smoke.
If you're trying to suggest we all have the right to jump off a bridge, I'd agree that we, "do not have to accept what is widely accepted and enforce rules they way they see fit in their games", but that's terrible advice because we all do have to justify our decisions and are held accountable to following generally acceptable interpretations and policies, whether we agree with them completely, or not.
What you describe as your State's advice on how to deal with this offense, is exactly what I have recommended from the very beginning. It is the weight of consistent compliance and precise execution with the requirements of the formational, shift and motion rules that I believe renders this offense unreliable.
My reference to perfection and consistency was a response to your mentioning the overt lack of consistency in application of the "hurdling" rule. I was simply suggesting that even though the pursuit of consistency, like perfection, is never attainable, the effort of that pursuit often generates a higher level of excellence.
Despite all the detours this topic has taken, and all that are still available, the main path remains unchanged, the A-11 offense, as distasteful and threatening as some may hold it, does not violate the current rule. Whether the arguments against it are sufficient to motivate the rule makers to ammend the rules to prevent this application, remains to be seen. That answer should be coming in the relatively near future.
|