A-11 Offense ??

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JPC75

Quote: Coaches, not officials, are the ones that make up the rules committee. Whatever changes that have been made have been the result of what coaches want.

Texas Aggie: I didn't say who created the rules, but my point is that if it was left up to the refs, they would surely vote to have more refs on the field which would allow for more ref control, more penalties and more stoppages.

Jimmy

We want more officials so that the game is covered better. I work 3 sports, including football and basketball and the last thing I want is to interrupt the game unnecessarily. Still 7 officials can cover a field better than 4 and that increases the likelihood we will make the necessary calls correctly so the players can really be responsible for the outcome of the game.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JPC75

Quote: Hey, Rubgy Ref...Rugby player here. Trust me, you're missing 90% of the game.

Rugby Player: What 90% of the game, which I probably didn't mention, am I missing? Are you referring to my mentioning of Rugby's 12 Laws of the Game?

Let me clarify something; I am not proposing that Rugby is better than Football; all I am saying is that if one can not agree that there is way too much officiating and dissecting of the numerous rules of the game of football, you must be blind. Some of the rules in football are absolutely ridiculous.

One recent rule change I hate is that a kicking team on a kick off can not advance a free ball that they recover. The kick off was always a free kick, meaning that once the ball went 10 yards it was any teams ball to advance. These types of rule changes ruin the game. There are a million others....

The game of football is becoming a shadow of its former self.....

Jimmy

That's not a recent rule change. The kicking team has never been allowed to advance a kick that wasn't possessed and then fumbled by the receivers.

[JPC75]

Quote: That's not a recent rule change. The kicking team has never been allowed to advance a kick that wasn't possessed and then fumbled by the receivers.

What if the ball is never touched by the recievers?

See now you have me doing it, what if the ball comes in contact with a blade of grass, should it be time for you to blow the whistle or call a penalty, throw a flag; maybe illegal use of the brain or hands or feet or fingers or toes...maybe illegal touching of the ball during the game penalty...?

ridiculous....!

[JPC75]

Quote:We want more officials so that the game is covered better. I work 3 sports, including football and basketball and the last thing I want is to interrupt the game unnecessarily. Still 7 officials can cover a field better than 4 and that increases the likelihood we will make the necessary calls correctly so the players can really be responsible for the outcome of the game.

You should only try and officiate one sport at a time, you authority maniac...

How many refs do you suppose is enough? One per player, so that they players can decide the outcome of the game?...you are so full of bull carp...!

Do you really believe that the refs are there to make the game more enjoyable. If there weren't so many ridiculous rules, you wouldn't need a of team of refs to enforce them...think about it....offense vs defense vs refs?!?!

Spoken like a true ref...

Jimmy

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by JPC75

Quote: That's not a recent rule change. The kicking team has never been allowed to advance a kick that wasn't possessed and then fumbled by the receivers.

What if the ball is never touched by the recievers?

It's not a rule change. You're wrong.

See now you have me doing it, what if the ball comes in contact with a blade of grass, should it be time for you to blow the whistle or call a penalty, throw a flag; maybe illegal use of the brain or hands or feet or fingers or toes...maybe illegal touching of the ball during the game penalty...?

ridiculous....!

Your post was illegal use of the brain!

[JPC75]

Ha ha...


The refs ruin the sport, counter that argument...!

[JPC75]

You can not deny that the more rules there are to enforce, that justify more refs needed to enforce them, the more likelyhood that the game will be interupted to enforce the multitude of rules...

[TXMike]

Originally Posted by JPC75

You can not deny that the more rules there are to enforce, that justify more refs needed to enforce them, the more likelyhood that the game will be interupted to enforce the multitude of rules...

Which takes this BS full circle back to the point of who it is that decides what and how many rules there will be, the coaches. You will not care to hear this but the NCAA rules committee (all coaches and AD's) are pressured by many groups, i.e. the trainer's organization, TV networks, AFCA, etc but the only influence the refs have is that once the committee decides they want a rule, the rules editor, a ref supervisor, helps them write it in a way it can be officiated.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by JPC75

What 90% of the game, which I probably didn't mention, am I missing?

No, I'm referring to their own brand of justice applied on the pitch by two teammates against an opponent because you never saw the original infraction. You're not Santa Claus. Players know you can't see everything.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by JPC75

Ha ha...


The refs ruin the sport, counter that argument...!

Without officials it would be a sandlot game.

Please find a fan forum to troll.

[wwcfoa43]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

That's not a recent rule change. The kicking team has never been allowed to advance a kick that wasn't possessed and then fumbled by the receivers.

In Canada, we still allow the kicking team to advance the ball that they recover. It seems kind of strange that in the U.S. this is not allowed. I think the kicking team running downfield is exciting.

Wonder why they changed it (back in the early dawn when football separated from Rugby). Did the U.S. rulemakers feel there would be too much excitement on recovered onside kicks?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JPC75

A distant cousin to football is a good game called Rugby which has not been too corrupted by the refs. The rule book, called the laws of the game, has 12rules.

Yeah, and each rule broken into sections, paragraphs, etc., whoopee. Until a few years ago it was a lot more rules than that, they just reorganized them. Rugby's been thru that before, BTW, and so have American & Canadian football. They get up to 40-some rules and then they decide to re-edit them into 10 or 13, so what? The book's just as long once they interpolate all the rulings.

There are ways of doing this semi-automatically. You use a compression algorithm to search for repeated strings, and then instead of computer code to represent them, you use judgement to decide whether it's reasonable to define a term that will work for all of those occurrences.

Robert

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JPC75

One recent rule change I hate is that a kicking team on a kick off can not advance a free ball that they recover.

"Recent"? Unless you're talking Canadian, that value of "recent" makes for the really looooong view of American football! In another thread I'm criticizing Mr. Redding for a quote that essentially equates his lifetime (or less) with the entire history of football, but looks like the opposite problem here. (Please don't tell me they made that change recently in Football Canada or CFL.)

Seriously, the only codes I know of in 11-a-side that allow team K to advance their free kick are possibly the IWFL and possibly Big Apple Youth Football, and I suspect an editing error in the case of the IWFL and officials' errors in BAYF. Arena Football allows it. 11s banned it faaaar back in the 20th C, maybe even before NFL & Fed rules diverged from NCAA.

Originally Posted by RichMSN

That's not a recent rule change. The kicking team has never been allowed to advance a kick that wasn't possessed and then fumbled by the receivers.

Sorry, Rich, your "never" betrays the opposite problem from JPC75's use of "recent". The rule's old, but not original equipment.

Originally Posted by somebody_whose_handle_I_forgot

Wonder why they changed it (back in the early dawn when football separated from Rugby). Did the U.S. rulemakers feel there would be too much excitement on recovered onside kicks?

Combination of 2 factors:

1. safety
2. desire to separate attacking from defending functions

Factor #1 says the safest ball is a dead ball. Fed went the farthest in this regard, killing the ball for more reasons than any other code. However, I see that Fed has reversed that tendency somewhat in the last decade or two.

Factor #2 is purely a matter of taste. Going back to 1880 there's been a desire in American football to make the offense beat a prepared defense, rather than allowing unexpected possession to provide spontaneous play. (Even Canadian football hasn't been devoid of that sentiment, as shown during a brief period when fewer points were awarded for an "unearned" try -- pouncing on a ball left by opponents behind their goal line -- than for an "earned" one -- advanced by the attacking team.) That operated in allowing team A an uncontested scrimmage to begin with, and was also a factor in the NCAA's keeping for so long their rule forbidding advance of an opponent's grounded fumble or muff (which, however, was originally adopted to encourage risky lateral passes).

Robert

[Texas Aggie]

if it was left up to the refs, they would surely vote to have more refs on the field which would allow for more ref control, more penalties and more stoppages

First of all, most officials call what's there. They don't seek more control or want more penalties. Most of them, in fact, want fewer. The game gets over faster. Plus, the crews that get the best schedules around here are the ones that have the fewest penalties (and they all know that). So you couldn't be more wrong on this point.

Second, we don't want any more officials out on the field or court than is necessary to do our job. I don't want more than 3 officials in basketball nor more than 7 in football (5 in subvarsity). So, you're wrong here as well.

I love it when people that know nothing about officiating start talking about what officials want.

[cmathews]

Originally Posted by JPC75

right.....Doug Flutie....opps....what a great player....

I am actually a Rubgy ref. Reffing a Rugby match is pretty difficult but the ref does have the last word and everyone on the field respects that or they get sent off.

I would love to ref a Canadian football game, but we don't get much coverage here in the States. I have seen some games though and the wider field and 3 downs make the game intresting. I like the 1 point for punting out of the endzone too.

Anyway, I do love football, but hate the over officiated, heavly structured NFL game.

and you have the audacity to say football officials are on a power trip....wow....