[LDUB]

Originally Posted by daggo66

This would never work. I don't care how many games you have officiated or worked, the game of football is not played that way. A makes the decision of whether or not to punt independently of B's formation. It all depends on down and distance, time, and situation. B would never send someone deep just to allow A to sub. They wouldn't want the "good" snapper in the game.

I was going to say the same thing. If A only has 1 snapper who wears #44 then B can never drop anyone back and try to block every kick. With all the bad snaps B will surely have a good shot at blocking them.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

You're so solicitous of team A's being able to throw to any receiver even from scrimmage kick formation that you wouldn't want them to sacrifice even one eligible receiver to get a special snapper in at center

Many teams will have only 1, maybe 0 linemen 50-79 for punts. I don't think you understand the numbering exception. It is so teams can put in whoever they want and not have to worry about having 5 numbered 50-79.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

yet you deny them the use of the numbering exception to hide eligible receivers unless you deem it by pure judgement a kicking situation? Why is it so important to preserve up to 6 eligible receivers if you think a kick is likely anyway?

Ummm....the numbering exception is not supposed to be used to "hide eligible revievers". That is basically the reason why everyone on here hates the A-11. You claim to be some sort of person who understands football but you can't see why teams need their ends to be elgible recievers. Teams run fake punts and pass the ball to an end.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Surely from my sampling there'd be other examples in a world this size. How many teams use A-11? You insist on writing the rules to take account of this minuscule number of teams, yet you blithely would sweep aside other minorities of systems that may be out there now or in the future.

Yep that is correct. I am against any system which abuses the numbering exception.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

If at any time the ball was ready for play team B assumed scrimmage kick formation (already described), then the officials would stop the play clock, announce the availability of the numbering exception, and allow subs to enter for team A provided they were wearing 1-49 and/or 80-99. A would be allowed time to re-huddle before the play clock was restarted.

A scores a touchdown. They want to bring in players under the numbering exception for the field goal on the try. There is only 13 yards of the field that B can be on. How exactly to they line up in a SKF (25 yards deep) when only 13 yards are available? What about when A is on the 30 yards line and are attempting a field goal and B wants all their players on the line to block the kick? Having B determine what players A can have in the game has to be about the dumbest idea ever; it just doesn't make sense.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

NCAA's language, which combines "obvious" naively with "may", would be completely ineffectual if anyone attempted to run A-11. If anyone tried A-11 in any circuit playing NCAA rules, it would take an explicit ruling from the organiz'n (such as Texas HSAA) that it was illegal.

So you're saying that if in the BCS championship game A has the ball 1st and 10 on B's 17 yard line. They line up in the A-11, all players elgible numbers, QB 7 yards deep, and you believe that it would not have been a foul?

You really don't seem to understand the numbering exception, let alone the game of football. The NCAA wording is perfect. The word may is needed because no one is ever sure that a team will kick. Teams run fakes all the time. The word obvious is needed because the team may kick on any down but the exception is only used in obvious kicking situations. The play I posted above is not an obvious kicking situation. A is not going to punt on 1st down inside of B's 20 yard line.