A-11 Offense ??

[TXMike]

Originally Posted by ajmc

"Here's that actual definition of a SKF: "A scrimmage kick formation is a formation with at least one player seven yards or more behind the neutral zone, no player in position to receive a hand-to-hand snap from between the snapper’s legs, and it is obvious that a kick may be attempted."

Bob, I believe the problem here is that the rule's wording is, intentionally or not, ambiguous. Using the phrase "a kick may be attempted" is the problem. "SHALL be attempted", "WILL be attempted", or even "MUST be attempted", would have closed the glaring loophole use of the word "MAY" opened up.

Whether or not, that was the intent is irrelevant. What is written, and subsequently approved and codified, is the rule, and unfortunately the choice of words used in the written rule created a loophole. Loophole's can be either intentional, or accidental, but in either case they provide an alternative direction that may, or may not have been anticipated, and once discovered remain open until they are specifically closed.

You left out a HUGE part of the definition ..."obvious" If a team lines up in a shotgun formation on 3d down and the "QB" is 7 or more yards deep, is the defense gong to send a DB back downfield to field the "maybe" punt?? Heck no They are not because in that situation it is NOT obvious the kick may be attempted therefore you cannot have a SKF, therefore you cannot have the numbering excpetion, therefore the A-11 is ILLEGAL under NCAA rules.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by jtex

I think this is very creative! I must applaud Coach Bryan and his staff's creativity!

It does bring out a few contridictions in the rules.

From the 2007 NCAA Rules:

Rule 1.4.1 states the numbering system is STRONGLY Recommended.

Rule 1.4.2 states 5 players number 50-79 must be on the LOS, but their is NO Requirement that #50 could not be the END.

Rule 7.1.3.a.4.c assumes all linemen between the ends are numbered between 50-79, but Rule 1.4.1 states that numbering system is strongly recommended. Further, no official would revive this dead thread.

Let's assume the rule is changed to require players be numbered bewteen 50-79. Does this mean the A-11 cannot be used. No it does not!

Rules do not state minimum or maximum required OL split. OL could be foot to foot or 10 yds. This does not change the A-11 CONCEPT.

Congratulation on your appointment to Coach Kurt "Money" Bryan's staff! You have to be a coach because you know nothing about this from an officiating standpoint.

I now humbly apologize to my bretheren for again replying within this idiotic thread.

[jtex]

Actually, I am not a coach, trying to understand the difference between HS and college rules.

But you must not be an official because a real official would use his real name and not a user name.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by jtex

But you must not be an official because a real official would use his real name and not a user name.

Yeah I'm just a make believe zebra.

[Theisey]

Originally Posted by jtex

I think this is very creative! I must applaud Coach Bryan and his staff's creativity!

It does bring out a few contridictions in the rules.

From the 2007 NCAA Rules:

Rule 1.4.1 states the numbering system is STRONGLY Recommended.

Rule 1.4.2 states 5 players number 50-79 must be on the LOS, but their is NO Requirement that #50 could not be the END.

Rule 7.1.3.a.4.c assumes all linemen between the ends are numbered between 50-79, but Rule 1.4.1 states that numbering system is strongly recommended.

Let's assume the rule is changed to require players be numbered bewteen 50-79. Does this mean the A-11 cannot be used. No it does not!

Rules do not state minimum or maximum required OL split. OL could be foot to foot or 10 yds. This does not change the A-11 CONCEPT.

There is no contradiction. The numbering recommendation defines the " eligibility by your number" part of the rule of who can catch a forward pass.

If you are going quote rules, then make sure you better quote them properly.

Rule 1.4.2 has an important rule wording you left out.. You left out the words "AT LEAST". That says you can have all 7 on the line wearing numbers 50-79.
Follow-on rules then state who is eligible which takes into account their position and numbering. So if a team wants all there End's and Back's to wear numbers 59-70.. great! I have no issue with that. Makes my job easier because no one is eligible to catch a forward pass. I like that.

If they want all there linemen to wear 1-49, go for it coach.. The problem will be they are gonna get a flag on every snap for an illegal formation except if it were fourth down and it is OBVIOUS that a scrimmage kick will be made.

The only thing you have said right is there is no rule on the distance between the players such as the center, guard, tackle or end. Never was, never will be. It's a don't care item.

IMO, A-11 exploits a loophole in NFHS rules. Legal today, but maybe not in future years. I also have no doubts it will never become a legal NCAA formation as their rules have wording that prohibits it in all but an obvious kicking situation.

[ajmc]

I think your problem, TxMike, is that you are trying to base your conclusion on semantics, that when examined, don't support your conclusion. As is commonly understood, what may be "obvious" to one party, may very clearly NOT be obvious to another.

Football is a game of feints and fakes and deliberately trying to confuse an opponent into anticipating you are going to do something, you are actually not planning to do.

Responding to an offensive formation offers the defense choices. Often, the choices decided upon by the defense, may cause the offense to elect which direction in which to procede. Kicking, or not kicking, may hinge entirely on the decision by the defense, whether to put a player downfield in response to the formation.

There are things we can all reasonably presume, whether or not something is obvious to someone else, is not one of them.

[waltjp]

A fourth down play at any point during the game presents and obvious kicking opportunity. The waning seconds of the half or in the game present other obvious kicking opportunities.

Second down and 6 in the middle of the third quarter from A's 35 is not an obvious kicking down.

[JasonTX]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I
Football is a game of feints and fakes and deliberately trying to confuse an opponent into anticipating you are going to do something, you are actually not planning to do.

I would be real cautious about using the terms feints, fakes, and deliberate and claiming they are part of the game when in fact the NCAA book uses those words in some of their rules in dealing with illegal tactics and even the term feint is used in the front of the book under the football code. The NCAA code wants the field to be "level" I'd reccomend you do some reading in the section that deals with substitutions and you'll get a good dose of rules that make deceptions illegal.

[jaybird]

A healthy dose of football common sense, a solid grasp of definitions and proper application of words and phrases would be beneficial as well.

[Mike L]

there certainly seems to be a problem with the supporters of this scheme comprehending the difference between the terms "obvious" and "possible".

[TXMike]

Is it just me or are there others who are sensing an "undercover" attempt to justify this fraudulent football "system"? Maybe it is just the cynical side of me but I do not think our recently joined "members" are really members of our fraternity.

[jaybird]

Originally Posted by TXMike

Is it just me or are there others who are sensing an "undercover" attempt to justify this fraudulent football "system"? Maybe it is just the cynical side of me but I do not think our recently joined "members" are really members of our fraternity.

Mike, I sense the same thing. I really don't see how anyone can justify this system. Maybe some "moles" have been planted among us by the dark side.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JasonTX

The NCAA code wants the field to be "level" I'd reccomend you do some reading in the section that deals with substitutions and you'll get a good dose of rules that make deceptions illegal.

Thank you for your suggestion ,JasonTX, but my concerns are currently limited to the rules code that applies to the other 48 States. In the NFHS environment, we have access to a "Case Book", that is an official extension of the NFHS Rule Book and provides official interpretations to a variety of play situations.

Under the "Unfair Act" section (NF: 9.9.3.Situation B) a play situation relating to the "Where's the TEE" type play advises, "Football has been and always will be a game of deception and trickery involving multiple shifts, unusual formations and creative plays." It goes on to relate specifically to plays using "actions or verbiage designed to confuse the defense into believing there is a problem and a snap is not imminent is beyond the scope of sportsmanship and is illegal".

Personally, I think the "A-11 Offense" is impractical because it requires an extraordinary level of perfect compliance with a series of existing formational and player movement rules, by an entire formation, that I doubt many teams can execute, properly, consistently. I simply believe holding teams responsible for consistent compliance to these existing rules, is a more effective way to control it's application, than trying to twist some, unfortunately, ambiguous verbiage to align with a personal interpretation that the written rules do not support.

"Where's the TEE" is an example of a concept extending beyond legality, that ultimately it, and an unending variety of alternatives, have been declared excessive and illegal. There are currently a series of requirements, in the rules, that are extremely difficult, for an a-11 offense to comply with on a consistent basis, which may well simply render the concept ineffective.

[jtex]

thanks for clarifying for me.

I did not see "at least" in the 2007 NCAA rule I downloaded from the the NCAA website the other day. I just double checked the rules I copied. Here is the link to the rules I reviewed: http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/20...ball_rules.pdf. Pls send me the link with the current rules so I can re-read them.

I did read the Eligibility passing Rules: 3.3 pg FR-102, which I did not read before I posted.

It says a player #50-79 is ineligible to catch a "forward pass" no matter where he aligns, but if I read the rule properly, he can catch a flair pass if the aligns in the backfield; A flair pass is thown behind the LOS. A ball that does not cross the neutral zone is not a forward pass.

Originally Posted by Theisey

There is no contradiction. The numbering recommendation defines the " eligibility by your number" part of the rule of who can catch a forward pass.

If you are going quote rules, then make sure you better quote them properly.

Rule 1.4.2 has an important rule wording you left out.. You left out the words "AT LEAST". That says you can have all 7 on the line wearing numbers 50-79.
Follow-on rules then state who is eligible which takes into account their position and numbering. So if a team wants all there End's and Back's to wear numbers 59-70.. great! I have no issue with that. Makes my job easier because no one is eligible to catch a forward pass. I like that.

If they want all there linemen to wear 1-49, go for it coach.. The problem will be they are gonna get a flag on every snap for an illegal formation except if it were fourth down and it is OBVIOUS that a scrimmage kick will be made.

The only thing you have said right is there is no rule on the distance between the players such as the center, guard, tackle or end. Never was, never will be. It's a don't care item.

IMO, A-11 exploits a loophole in NFHS rules. Legal today, but maybe not in future years. I also have no doubts it will never become a legal NCAA formation as their rules have wording that prohibits it in all but an obvious kicking situation.

[jtex]

The current HS rules allows this. You must enforce the current rules whether you like them or not and let the rule committee determine the rules. Make your concerns known to the rules committee. If you do not agree with the approve rules, then officiate another sport.

My questions are can this formation be used at the NCAA level. If you want to engage me in an intelligent dialogue, then I will gladly do it. But instead, you insult and attack other people integrity. Glad you will stay a saturday morning recreation pee-wee flag official, feel bad for the 6 yr old kids though.

Originally Posted by Welpe

Yeah I'm just a make believe zebra.