Yeah, it's called Arena Football.

The game of football is one of the most popular sports there is. Some say that it is the true American pass time. That being said, don't look for whole sale changes. Changes come about when either the offense or defense seems to get one up on the other. You can't have too much scoring or not enough. The other thing that brings about change is injury, i.e the horsecollar tackle. Your issue is a regional one that needs to be addressed on that basis. Where I grew up in NJ teams played based on size. The same is true in MD. That is the problem you need to fix. I'm shocked that you don't know Billy Mays:

http://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/...06/story8.html

I didn't get the Billy Mays reference either. I would have got Ron Popiel maybe!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Popeil

Ron is actually an inventor. Billy is just a slick pitch man. In this case Billy Mays is the better reference.

I hear Canada is a nice place for this type of stuff. Why not take it there?

Billy Mays
 

To the Officials who compare yours truly to Billy Mays...

I guess most people would say Billy is successful, very, very successful now that I know who he is...in fact I bought his knife sharperners last year and they work great, and I really don't care if or if not he invented them.

* It is sad, very sad testimony to some of the folks on this board that revert to cutdowns on here, not all Refs, but just a few guys cannot help attacking people online - the LACK OF MATURITY by those people is astounding.

Keep it above the belt, please, so as to not lower the bar for the rest of the officials who either do not resort to personal attacks or choose to remain silent and only read the posts to keep informed.

"Silence can never be misquoted."

Sincerely,

KB:)

Sorry if you take offense to my commentary Kurt, but I call them like I see them. It's not personal, I don't care who wins or loses as long as both sides play by the rules. In your case that remains to been seen. Your motives however are crystal clear. I'm not attacking you by comparing you to Billy Mays, I'm merely stating the obvious.

Well, I am willing to give KB credit for inventing this offense! So I say he is more like Ronco!

Why? He's not the first to use it. He may be the first to try to market it, though.

Sing, Garth! :)

Pure travesty! Unfair act!!!

I contacted the FHSAA (Florida) and they sent it back to me and told me my local HS group and the youth group I run, would need to determine whether or not it met the Rule as specified in the NFHS rules book.

Will bring it up to my HS group when we meet in April. My youth group will be meeting next week and from all indications, it will be deemed an unfair act.

Until guidance from the FHSAA is forthcoming, our local group will make the decisions.:)

The same excuse Fed gave for banning kicks following possession change during a down, and which they could use to outlaw any tactic that falls into disuse.

Robert

Many times they've changed things just for the hell of it. When they added the 2 point try, and when NCAA put in 2-way scoring for the try, those changes weren't a response to any problem. (IMO the best thing would've been just to abolish the try entirely.) Fed went thru a long period in which they progressively harmonized the rules for all free kicks until they were almost uniform, then they reversed themselves and started differentiating them again.

Robert

Because it would then be the A-12 offense.....:D How's their rule book written? Remember, in Canada a player with a number 70-79 is an eligible receiver. It always looks funny when a #77 is taking one to the house in that big end zone to celebrate in........;)

Besides Billy Mays is into the marketing side, not the development and production of said products. I don't think anyone should be offended with a full money back guarantee.

BTW-That OxyClean is very good stuff. Try it in laundry, especially your whites. Warm water, a little OxyClean and plastic bristle brush get the white on my base shoes looking brand new. Makes the black part nice and shiny, too.

Our ineligibles are 40-69. Eligibles are outside of that range, and must be eligible by position as well. If there are any deviations from their status, they must report to the Referee, who will inform the defense before the RFP is blown in.

All in all, the Canadian game permits more freedom among the players' actions.

(Shaking head from side-to-side):
 

" . . . It is sad, very sad testimony to some of the folks on this board that revert to cutdowns on here, not all Refs, but just a few guys cannot help attacking people online - the LACK OF MATURITY by those people is astounding."

Kurt, Kurt, Kurt . . .

Now you are telling us what to post. ~Sigh~

Perhaps you should stick with your marketing efforts on coaching websites.

All I know is that I have grown tired of your refrain.

Regards,

Ah! We have a new moderator! :D

BTW coach, how are sales these days? :rolleyes:

Player Numbering
 

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.

REPLY: jtex...Let's make sure we understand what the rules say about numbering:
1. There must be five players numbered 50-79 on the line of scrimmage at the snap. No "recommendation" there...it's a requirement.
2. Where a team chooses to put those linemen is what's recommended.
3. There is one exception to the requirement in #1, i.e. a 'scrimmage kick formation' where Team A can substitute eligible numbers for the five guys numbered 50-79.

But remember one other NCAA requirement about scrimmage kick formations: That is, in order to use the numbering exception that allows eligible numbers to 'replace' the 50-79 linemen, it must "...be obvious that a kick may be attempted." That pretty much rules out the A-11 on 1st, 2nd, or 3rd downs.

The A-11 is perfectly legal on 4th down and has been for some time. But that's about it.

That is not correct.

Go and look at the NCAA rules I posted.

1.4.1
1.4.2
7.1.3.a.4.c

You will see 1.4.1 states very clearly SRONGLY RECOMMEND. There is no way you can dispute that. I cannot change the wording.

ARTICLE 1. It is strongly recommended that offensive players be numbered
according to the following diagram that shows one of many offensive
formations (Rule 1-4-2-b):

Go look at the 2007 rules posted on the NCAA website to see diagram

No, you can punt any any down. Nothing says you must punt on 4th down only. All it says might punt. this does not mean you will punt.

What about kicking field goals on third down instead of 4th? Should field goals only be allowed on 4th down too?

Sorry re-read your post more carefully.

That's the point. Who says #50 cannot be the EMOL? He is then eligible for pass. The whole argument from several people on this particluar postings fall apart.

1.4.1 recomends 50-79 be OL #
1.4.2 states 5 players numbered be on the LOS
7.1.3.a.4.c ASSUMES 50-79 are OL on the LOS.

Let's assume the rules are changed to require 50-79 be OL. Does this change the A-11 concept. No, not really. This is the extreme version of the spread.

Umm, no. I'm a fed guy, but I'm fairly certain on the NCAA front this is wrong as well. A quick websearch for NCAA rules reveals:

Rule 7-3, Article 3: "Eligibility rules apply during a down when a legal forward pass is thrown. All Team B players are eligible to touch or catch a pass. When the ball is snapped, the following Team A players are eligible:"

Article 3a: "Each player who is in an end position on his scrimmage line and who is wearning a number other than 50 through 79 (A.R. 7-3-3I).

And further in Article 3b: "Each player who is legally positioned as a back wearing a number other than 50 through 79."

And again in Article 3c: "A player wearing a number other than 50 through 79 in position to receive a hand-to-hand snap from between the snapper’s legs."

Pretty definitive that those numbered 50-79 must be on the line, and in all situation are ineligible (barring exceptions such as scrimmage kicks as Bob mentioned and when eligibility restrictions end).

I don't see how A-11 could be feasible in NCAA given their ruleset.

jtex -
Suggest you read through this entire thread. The A-11 is illegal in NCAA for many reasons and they are clearly set out in this thread.

Don't get hung up on the "recommended numbering" section All that section is doing is saying that players in certain positions are recommended to have certain numbers. Can a snapper wear a 65? You bet. Can an end wear 65? You bet (but he will not be an eligible receiver) There have to be 5 wearing 50-79 on the line at the snap (with the SKF exception of course) in any of the positions, i.e. snapper, guard, tackle, end.

If you are in Texas and reffing HS football, suggest you bring this up with the "rules guys" in your Chapter and you will get confirmation.

Mike are you saying that if/when I move to Texas, I can't take this offense with me? Whatever will I do... :( ;)

Play REAL football as it is intended by the spirit of the rules!

Hmmm...

This thread has been dormant for two months. We then get somebody who joins today and writes this? Something smells a bit fishy.

nothing fishy. just read about this in american football monthly.

Oh no it's getting published..... :eek:

No, you're reading the word may out of the rule. And because "a kick" could be a drop kick, it's not even ruled out close to B's goal line.

They have started talking about it on coaching and fan boards in Texas. As is to be expected, there are a few hardheads trying to rationalize why it is legal. I am pretty sure they are going to find out pretty quick in Week 1 just how "legal" it is. ;-)

If nothing else, many more people will become educated about the game.

Sadly, there will be more misconceptions/misinterpretations as well.

REPLY: No...the word "may" appears pretty clearly in my post. All that implies is that it's not necessary that the ball be kicked. But it still needs to be obvious that a kick may be attempted. (which is just what I said earlier). Regardless of the possibility of a drop kick, it's still a combination of down, distance, and time which drives the decision of whether or not the possibility of a kick is obvious. On first and goal from B's 4 with 8:00 remaining in the first quarter, is it possible that a kick could be attempted? yes. Is it obvious that a kick could be attempted? definitely not.

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."

"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.

the words shall, will, and must were not used because the rulemakers understood there is still the opportunity for a fake kick that should be allowed. If they used those words, no fake kick would be possible out of a team's usual kick formation/lineup. Take away that possibility and don't you think the defense might realize something is up?

PS - I can't believe this thread has been resurrected and that I bothered to answer in it.

REPLY: I feel the same way. I should be flogged.:o

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.

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.

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.

Yeah I'm just a make believe zebra. :rolleyes:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

I can't believe I am doing this.......


The NCAA answer HAS been given already. Did you read the responses? Are you a coach, an official, or something else? (And if you are from Texas, you likely know that HS football in Texas is played under NCAA rules, hence this "offense" is illegal in Texas HS football except on 4th down, and sometimes not even on 4th down)

A ball that does not cross the neutral zone is not a forward pass? HUH? A pass is either forward or backwards and neither of those has anything to do with where the neutral zone is. Check this out:

Rule 2-19-2
Forward and Backward Pass
ARTICLE 2. a. A forward pass is determined by the point where the ball
first strikes the ground, a player, an official or anything beyond the spot
of the pass. All other passes are backward passes. When in question, it is
a forward pass rather than a backward pass when thrown in or behind the
neutral zone.

I agree. In fact my association had a game last season with the team that runs the A-11 offense. The officials on that game allowed the offense to be run because it is legal in NFHS rules. I don't believe it is within the spirit of the game but that is an esoteric discussion that has been rehashed time and again here.

I'm not sure where the personal insults are coming from as I have never questioned your integrity. I simply commented on your outlandish statement that any official that doesn't post under his real name must not be a "real official". In fact I would say that you are questioning the integrity of several people on this forum.

Your question has been answered numerous times throughout this thread. The A-11 is almost NEVER legal under NCAA rules.

Only in 6 man!

Flogged or flagged! :D

Thanks for straighting me out on the forward pass. I thought a ball passed beyond the neutral zone was a forward pass because the NCAA rules on Pass Interference.

The interference rule says a legal forward pass beyond the neutral zone. I just assumed it was not considered a forward pass until it crossed the neutral zone.

Does this mean the defender can bump, hit, knock down a receiver until a forward pass crosses the neutral zone?

The article in AFM got me thinking about football rules and the differences between the different levels of football.

He is allowed to legally block the receiver until that receiver occupies the same yardline as the defender. In the NFL he is allowed a 5 yard "chuck" zone but NCAA there is no such rule.

A-11 offense
 

It's great to see that refs go into a frenzy about this.

One of my favorite QB's, Doug Flute would research and try things that tested the envelope of the rules. One of his unsuccessful attempts was an old rule regarding downfield kicking in Candian Football i.e. running over the LOS and drop kicking the ball toward the goal post in free play for 3 points, which was legal and harkens back to the days when there weren't 15 refs on the field, using a rule book the size of the Bible.
He wanted to attempt this to try and win a game with 2 seconds left being down by 2 points with no time outs.

Doug Flute is also the man who drop kicked a PAT during the Patriot's game against Dolphins:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2277308

I played football for 10 years, backyard and organized through college. I have lost just about all interest in football, especially the NFL. The NFL is a boring beer commercial and is as predictable as a jack in the box. Everyone agrees that it is the rare or trick plays that make the game intresting i.e. onside kicks, fake punts, etc..
I can just about stand NCAA football, but would rather go to one of my nephew's high school games.

I truely believe if it was left up to the refs, they would amend the rules to have equal number of refs per on-field players and would ride the backs of the players like jockeys.

The refs crossed the line when they started to believe that their job wasn't background to the game and the players, but was as important, if not more important than the game itself. A refs job is to officiate the game, not control it.

The bottom line is, whether you admit it or not, over officiating football ruins the game. Commercials don't help either.

Hats off to you Coach Bryant, have fun, win and make money and pay no attention to the begrudging refs who want to ruin the game.

------

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. There is one referee per 30 players and he has the assistance of two sideline judges. Other than that, there is a time keeper and a score keeper. But before you start knocking this sport, please watch a game between to good teams and then comment.

Watch, learn and understand:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5FzQRyRqew -
too bad for our boys but the game is growing and we are getting better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNaUuwqbH68

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQ5tHgET4N4


Jimmy

You SOOOOOOOOOOOOO need to referee football in Canada!

You would have tonnes of fun, as we haven't all the limitation in US-based rules. :)

PS: His name is Doug Flutie. ;)

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.

I've heard some people come up with their own version for what NFL is an acronym. LOL

I too think that the NFL is heavily structured, and tremendously enjoy the CFL game. I still watch the NFL, though. :) But only after CFL games.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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....!

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

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

Your post was illegal use of the brain! :D

Ha ha...


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

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.

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.

Without officials it would be a sandlot game.

Please find a fan forum to troll.

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?

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

"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.

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

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

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.

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

I think you've mis-interpreted his post.

He's saying, I believe, that there is more respect in the game of rugby than there is in football. That includes respect for the judgement of game officials.

They haven't: FC and the CFL still permit the kicking team to obtain and advance a legal kick-off. I can't imagine that ever changing - it is so engrained into our game.

Agreed with everything, except for the bold statement. While preventative officiating is desired, and even stressed here in Canada, and can be used for reducing the number of penalties, I prefer that quality flags be thrown, rather than a low quantity of flags be thrown. For quality officials, it is rare to have a large number of flags because they effectively use other tools during the game.

I agree with both!

1. That quality flags should be the deciding factor and not quantity.

2. That officials in the group at the top of the game will be judged as better if they have fewer flags. This may not be accurate but does present a objective measure which is too good to pass up for many people.

Yup.

Did a wild card playoff game the other day. I was deep, and during one punt (ball in flight), the CB was holding a WR a bit down the field. My decision was to say "stay legal - don't hold". The CB let go of the WR. He still was able to provide adequate blocking during the play, but I like to think that I may have prevented a foul. (I stole the "stay legal" phrase from officiating basketball.)

I would even say that once per game I tell one player to tell his teammate (with number provided) to ________ (insert suggestion to prevent a foul). Eg: "tell number 85 to watch his timing when hitting the LOS".

I prefer doing this than to throwing a hanky. The obvious ones, though, you gotta throw. Facemasks, an obvious offside, etc....

We teach our side guys to yell if B is in the NZ, and hopefully they move back before the snap. You can't argue when with an official if he's yelling at you to move back and you don't move at all.

More rules = More refs = More control...

I can believe that most refs on this site are conscious and try not to over officiate and ruin the game, and that is probably why they are on this site. The problem, however, are the majority of football refs do not visit this site and do not care to be educated and love to throw "Hankies".

Ruins the game.

----

WaltJP

On the rugby note, I do realize that I miss 90% of the rugby game I officiate (although this seems a little over exaggerated) after you clarified that fouls that occur behind my back are missed.

You are also right that I am aware of behind my back justice. This is all part of the sport and it is a judgment call for the ref. I might notice a black eye or broken nose on one player complaining to me that he was roughed off the ball by another player and when his opposing number turns up with a black eye or broken nose, I am not usually left wondering where it came from. However, I will call it if I see it. This is part of the game.

And I was not being arrogant by saying that the rugby ref’s word is last. It is just known and respected within the sport.

Jimmy

I don't think that you have accounted for some things.

Transfer of knowledge. An official doesn't have to visit a site like this one to not be a heavy hanky-thrower. There are many posters here, but there are even more lurkers. If they read the posts here and take some of the info back to the local groups, I hope that valuable information is passed onto other officials.

Contributors like Bob M., TX Mike, grant, Goodman, JRut, Welpe, Mr. Hickland, I could go on and on, provide valuable 411 for everyone within a degree or two, or three. :)

Can't you guys give this threadjack it's own thread? I cringe whenever I see this title near the top.

As a VHSL head linesman, what amazed me is how much of the YouTube video of the A11 offense contained illegal activity that should have been flagged. The first clip had the "deep" back only 6 yards from the line of scrimmage (illegal formation) and the next play shown had an illegal shift due to the final motion man not waiting 1 second after the previous shift to start his motion.

The A11 formation may be legal, but it apparently spawns a plethora of OTHER illegal activity - all in the name of "confusing the defense" (and apparently the officials, too, as none of the things I noted were flagged). Keep the offense within the other rules and the defenses facing them might have less difficulty adjusting.

Someone sent me a DVD of the offense and there were an incredible amount of flags for illegal formations and shifts (and this from a team that "invented" the offense.)

Yeah, I figured as much. If there were that many un-flagged infractions that were in their promotional video, I'm sure there were many more downs that did catch flags (and therefore weren't suitable for their video).

You know jack sh!t about football officials and officiating, obviously.

If it was left up to us, we'd vote to have no one pass or kick the ball and that's about it.

But (a) it ain't left up to us, ( b) it's never going to be left up to us and (c) the last two things on earth we want is for there to be more penalties and more stoppages.

Most of us aren't control freaks. We're not frustrated ex-jocks. I've been at this five years and have yet to meet a martinet. There's simply nothing in it that's worth everything you have to go through if your goal is just to screw up a great game for kids who are 17-18 years old.

Anyone who was really like that wouldn't last long in this avocation because most people would simply refuse to work with him or her.

Because that's not what we're about.

Just watched the video. Looks like an illegal formation on every other play. Also, it seems easy to key the type of play off the inside WR. If he goes down field( as in ineligible) it's a screen. If he doesn't ( and drops back to block) it's a long pass. If I can see this in 10 minutes, imagine what a good coach can do.

This has to be the longest post in the history of this forum!

I can see where the A-11 at first impression would drive a coach and his team crazy. While as officials we know players are ineligible by position a high school LB or DB may be confused the first time they see the A-11. You can only imagine the ruckus on the sideline in that first game.

But once a video is available and a coach has a chance ot school his players it would easy to defend against the A-11.

Maybe I missed it but somewhere in the post there was a discussion of the number of officials. From the video it appears the Piedmont games have only four officials. This would make an excellent case for the fifth official who could easily ID the players who are ineligible by position and not number.

Ed Hochuli
 

If you care to see how one of the 15 <exaggeration, just> officials on the field can control a football game, check this out...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ck_spf9a_vQ

There is no argument that there are too many referees with too much control with too many stupid rules in American Football...

One long predictable commercial with some football in between.
I long to go back to the day when money does not govern the game.

If you don't like this game, please feel free to visit the Rugby forum below.

I suppose there weren't enough Ed Hochuli threads here to catch the eye of an idiot like yourself.

Fumbleruski
 

Can someone tell me why an offense can not intentionally fumble a ball if they want to, like with a fumbleroski? (and I don't mean an illegal bat of the ball forward or fumble forward)

This is just another example of a rule added to the game to make it more predictable and boring. Anyone who says that trick plays and trick formations are not exciting to watch is lying.

I read in an early post that the consensus among refs is taht these sort of plays are degrading to a team who comes to the game more prepared and with better players.

My old high school football coach, who won 8 state titles had an arsenal of trick plays just in case we needed them, offense and special teams. We practiced them often and prepared ourselves to use them. It is part of the game.

What about when an opposing army uses a surprise attack or does something to surprise the other army to get advantage.

We had a play called the "oh sh!t play". The QB would throw a WR screen to a WR who would be intentionally behind the QB on the Wing. The QB would intentionally throw the ball into the ground so that it would bounce up to the WR as a fumble. The WR would say "Oh SH!T" as if it was incomplete and teh play was dead but after a second the WR woudl then throw a bomb to the split end who was usually wide open for a TD.

9 out of 10 times if we didn't notify the ref he would call it incomplete. Once, even after telling the ref and the WR was 3 yards behind the QB in the wing, he still called it incomplete.

Or

How about the "too many men" on the field trick play where the QB or Kicker pretends to be confused and count the players on the field during a no hundle play and yells at the recent substitute to get off the field. (Two men leave the field from the previous play and one man comes on.)
The substitute runs toward the sidelines and just as he is about to exit the field the center snaps the ball to the QB or direclty to the kicker and the exiting sub turns downfield for a bomb into the end zone.
Refs always call too many men on the field for this one if not notified and still even when notified a flag usually is dropped.

There are so many we used I can't even remember them. Muddle huddle, Hook and Ladder, Statue of Liberty, QB double option with the QB optioning it to RB who can then option right to another RB or left back to the QB if he wasn't tackled... We even practiced a dropped kicked onside kickoff though I don't know if it's legal.

Some might say that this is Grab @ss football, but I think it's great football.

Do you have a point or are you just trolling? We get it, you don't like how football is and wish it were more like rugby. Fortunately for you, rugby is already a sport. Why aren't you trying to change rugby to be more like football instead?

REPLY: Well, it's nice to know the officials got that one right, since it's a blatant violation of the illegal participation rule, which prohibits the offense from using substitutions or pretended substitutions immediately before the snap to confuse the defense. I'm sure the officials you're speaking about appreciate your endorsement.