A-11 Offense ??

[TXMike]

Originally Posted by Reffing Rev.

Creativity has no ends. Based on another thread, someone will call this 'not football play' and illegal deception because it puts the defense at a disadvantage. BTW, they are not saying that all 11 players are eligible on every down, but based on different sets different players could be eligible on successive downs. So that on first down the 5 eligible receivers might not be eligible on the 2nd down. Coaches think outside the box, and officials must learn to think outside the box too. Otherwise, those officials who can think outside the box will get black-marked for knowing the rules and allowing a completely legal play because the officials who rely on 'the way it used to be' cannot accept it because it it is unusual.

Don't be so quick to poo-poo the "way it used to be". The rules are made and modified over the years for some specific purpose. SO even if you and your "rule expert" buddies think some "new" play is legal by the rules, it is very possible that someone who has been around for awhile and who says it is illegal, is saying so because he knows what the intent of the rule was when it came into being. It appears this foolishness might be legal under Fed rules but I assure you it is illegal under NCAA rules (except for one very specific time).

[KurtBryan]

Dear Football Officials:

I am the head football coach at Piedmont High School in northern, CA, and this past season we ran a new offense called (the A-11 Offense); which stands for All Eleven Players Potentially Eligible, see link below please:

http://a11offense.blogspot.com/2007/...1-offense.html

We are a small school regularly competing against larger schools and we had to try and somewhat negate sheer size from the defensive side of the ball vs. our offense. As you know, on any given play only 5 players can catch a downfield pass, and once a man is covered, he remains ineligible for that play, etc.

1. After much research and diligent study for more than a year, we submitted our ideas, X's and O's and interpretations for this new offense to the NFHS, and CIF and of course it was approved after they did their due diligence and also conversed with us on exactly what we were going to do. Not only should the those officials be applauded for their open minded approach to this new style of offense, but they should also be praised for not discriminating against us for being different and trying something new.

2. What is just a crucial, is that all of the actual Officials who worked our football games this past season were extremely complimentary of our new brand of offense, and they found it easy to handle. "Much easier in person than simply viewing it on a chalkboard," was the feedback we received weekly.

3. For college and pro teams that can recruit and/or draft the exact personnel they want to use, the A-11 is probably not a big deal to them (and we also know the rules are different at those levels). However, for a small public high school like ours, developing the A-11, using it this initial season and being successful is something our kids, coaches and now our entire community is truly proud of.

4. We have received 95% great and amazingly positive feedback: in person, phone calls and emails from coaches, fans, and Officials about how exciting the A-11 Offense is! What a treat for our program and the players are really proud of it. Now that we are openly sharing our system with fellow coaches, fans and officials nationwide, it is amazing and they can teach us too as we share together.

5. For the thousands of small schools like us around the country competing weekly against bigger faster stronger teams, this is a thrilling evolution of the game, and thank you again to the officials and open minded people for allowing innovation in football to begin at the high school level.

* If you need further info, please contact me direct:

Sincerely,

Kurt Bryan
Head Football Coach, Piedmont High School
C: 510-410-4717
E: [email protected]

[waltjp]

Coach, you lost me at item 1 when you started talking about submitting ideas to the NFHS and CIF for their approval and when you started talking about 'open minded' officials who did not discriminate against you because you tried something new.

It's not my job to judge your offense, or even comment on it. I'm just there to administer the rules.

[wisref2]

In item 1, I'm pretty sure the coach is talking about officials (representatives) of the NFHS and CIF - not "officials" who wear the stripes.

It's a creative offense - and perfectly legal. It could work even better if they sometimes started out in a normal shotgun rather than scrimmage kick formation. They could shift into scrimmage kick before the snap, bringing in the numbering exception. Would add to the difficulty of knowing who to cover.

[KurtBryan]

Dear Officials: Thanks to WiseRef for clearing up the meaning of "officials", yes solid representatives of NFHS and CIF, thanks.

It has been a whirlwind since the season began and even more busy since our season ended, and respectfully to all of the nice folks who have supported this new offense, we pulled this quote from a frequent visitor at a huge football coaches message board:

Regarding Basic Concepts of the A-11 Offense:

" Just my two cents on the board...and the A-11

In the immortal movie line from the great military philosopher gunnery sargeant Thomas Highway, "Improvise, Adapt, Overcome." Before we slam this as a fad, I would just like to enjoy for a moment the creative, non self-pity approach to competing. I meet coaches all over this country(literally) who tell me they can't throw the ball, or can't win for very similar reasons as Coach Bryan describes. The difference here is that while the injustice of the enrollment and competition is well-documented, they are not feeling sorry for themselves and going 0-9. They got together as a staff and said, you know what, we gotta compete!!! Every game we watch, we are all looking for that Boise State "balls out" creativity that inspires us to do what we do better - does that mean the A-11 is going to become the new Tony Franklin system, probably not, but the reason I come to this board and contribute is because guys like this staff have the moxie to share their creativity. The A-11 represents surprise and resolve to do what was necessary at this point in their program. That flexibility is impressive. Now, I don't believe any offensive scheme should be immortalized, or every put above it's role in serving the best interests of a program. I just love the unique step it represents. It is a beach head assault of another kind. It may be a dead system in a few years, but the willingness of a coaching staff to scheme effectively around his strengths is always fun - and kudos to Piedmont.

The reason Coach Huey started this board was because in other places you would share creative ideas, a few would criticize that creativity into oblivion. The war of ideas will always be appropriate, but, at least for now, you can still share something on this board and get a reasonable response.

I don't know, nor do I care, if this is "flag football", "tiddly winks", or "rugby on steroids", if this forum for sharing successes is lost to the pharisaical philosophies of everything should be done this or that way, the gift that this board is will be lost.

I am not defending the A-11, only what it represents, the power of creative men solving a real problem in their program. I won't run it, but it makes me take another look at everything I am doing to make sure I am doing all I can to be competitive, and putting my kids in a position to win. The Double Wing offense practically sent the forward pass into the stone age, whereas Tony Franklin's system has turned the RB into a 6th lineman, are those not extreme expressions of creative thinking about what we do best.

coach5085 is right on when he describes the "flag football" design, but it is nothing like that in preparation. He isn't saying that, only in his getting a context for what he is reading. The "loophole" comment was probably ill-advised - one man's loophole, is another man's creativity, but guys lets keep this board what it was designed to be, and don't draw so many negative conclusions about the intent of what people mean.

I don't get into stuff like this, and I certainly don't need a problem with anyone, but this board didn't get where it is by coaches staying passive when it's original intent is threatened.

No harm done either way, but let's keep it football as best we can.

I am sure the Defensive coaches on this board will have the A-11 diagrammed to destruction before the last turkey sandwich is consumed.

I love this board!! I love this country - Happy Thanksgiving and good luck Coach Bryan in the playoffs."

[goldenwings68]

Rule 7, section, Art 5b----Exception----When A sets or shifts into a scrimmage-kick formation any A player numbered 1-49 or 80-99 may take the position of any A player numbered 50-79. A player in the game under this exception must assume an INITIAL POSITION on his LOS between the ends and he remains an ineligible forward-pass receiver during the down unless the pass is touched by B---

Concerning this A-11 formation--and the rule above---what constitutes an INITIAL Position?

This exception rule, in my opinion, was designed to let the offense bring in players that were faster, ie, backs, receivers, linebackers, that could get down the field faster on punts than the ordinary O linemen--now this formation, set of plays, is doing nothing but taking the intent and spirit of the exception and twisting it to an unfair advantage.

What happens on a play when the QB has to run away from the unrushing defense, a broken play? With ineligible receivers scattered across the width of the field, how are we, as a crew, going to determine who was eligible at the start of the play with no numbering system?

I'm just a little concerned here about having a rule exception turned into a mockery.

[KurtBryan]

This is a good point and...

* In terms of the offensive "deception" question from another post, and why the A-11 already has and will continue to pass that test:

a. thousands of offensive football teams have been and will continue to purposefully Present a certain pair or group of WR's Near the L.O.S. to the Defense, and then Cover or Uncover them to confuse the defense and to give the Defense a Cloudy pre-snap look as to what WR's are or are not eligible on that play. Those teams successfully confuse the Defense and they will continue to do so. That has been going on for years and will continue regardless of the A-11.

b. The A-11 simply offers more "potentially eligible" WR's that the Defense can see, and that was carefully reviewed last off-season prior to approval. But as you know only 5 of those WR can go downfield on a forward passing attempt each play.

c. Both of these facts were discussed in detail and have been brought to my attention many, many times since.

d. To the other question about QB's busting loose on a broken play and having Ineligible WR's downfield on that play, etc. Ineligible WR/TE/RB players have been illegally downfield and will continue to be with traditional offenses long before the A-11 offense took the field, and that has been well-documented. Plus the Officials already look for that on Punt and FG/PAT plays too.

e. Lastly, anybody that has coached against or Officiated one of our A-11 games from the 2007 has called the A-11 many things (mostly very good), but "mockery" would not be one of them, respectfully.

Sincerely,

KB
www.A11Offense.com

[TXMike]

Originally Posted by KurtBryan

This is a good point and...

* In terms of the offensive "deception" question from another post, and why the A-11 already has and will continue to pass that test:

a. thousands of offensive football teams have been and will continue to purposefully Present a certain pair or group of WR's Near the L.O.S. to the Defense, and then Cover or Uncover them to confuse the defense and to give the Defense a Cloudy pre-snap look as to what WR's are or are not eligible on that play. Those teams successfully confuse the Defense and they will continue to do so. That has been going on for years and will continue regardless of the A-11. www.A11Offense.com

Yes, BUT>>>>> that deception is limited to a maximum of 5 potential receivers. Your concept makes 10 potential receivers. This is patently unfair. As has been made clear here, the NFHS rulebook is lacking when it comes to dealing with your concept (but hopefully that will soon change). The NCAA rulebook is not so lacking and in there , even on situations where the numbering exception applies, there are very restrictive conditions placed on the offense to keep them from exploiting the "free for all" numbering.

[KurtBryan]

Dear Officials:

As I am sure you guys are, I have no more desire to discuss the, "is it ok or not ok" aspects of the A-11 offense anymore.

However, prior the the 2007 season many people told us the A-11 was either going to be a complete bust or a great innovation for the game, making it more fun and exciting, etc.

Also interesting prior to the 2007 season, was some people thought we were going to get MAJOR complaints from opposing coaches and officials.

But that did not happen at all - in fact it was just the opposite...so that begs a legimate question and here it is:

"After being involved in a game(s) featuring the A-11 Offense, why did the overwhelming majority of opposing coaches and officials view it as a positive innovation and healthy for the game?"

That seems to be a very fair question regarding innovation in football, be it the A-11 or something new from another team in 2008...

Sincerely,

Kurt Bryan
www.A11Offense.com

[TXMike]

Originally Posted by KurtBryan

Dear Officials:

"After being involved in a game(s) featuring the A-11 Offense, why did the overwhelming majority of opposing coaches and officials view it as a positive innovation and healthy for the game?"

At one time there were quite a few folks who thought it was "positive and healthy" to have "sporting events" featuring humans and lions fighting.

[daggo66]

Kurt, if you really were just in this to make your team better 99% of us would have no idea who you or your offense were and it certainly wouldn't have a name or a website. It's quite obvious that your real goal is to turn a profit. The sad thing for your team is that by bringing all this attention you very well could cause the NFHS to close the loophole. If you had kept your mouth shut, most likely no one would have noticed your little school running your little offense. Since you are trying to exploit something that is clearly an exception to the rules, you are making the rules committee look bad and will no doubt force them to make a change, thereby eliminating your little business venture. Please stop hiding behind your "innovation" and stop bringing your info-mercial to this web site.

Tom

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by TXMike

At one time there were quite a few folks who thought it was "positive and healthy" to have "sporting events" featuring humans and lions fighting.

Excellent, Mike. You got a chuckle out of me.

[KurtBryan]

As coaches, we are always looking for ways to help our team win, but Way to change the subject to $$$ Tom,. I play every kid in every game on JV & V regardless of the score or outcome, always have and always will because the KIDS come first.

And: we are certainly not into coaching for the money...but we love the experience of learning, coaching and sharing innovative ideas with our peers and officials.

Let's look at reality shall we?...I coach for Free, donate my coaching stipend back into the football program and love to help my players become better people each day on and off the field.

So please keep the $$$ out of it --- we will be lucky to break even and recoup our cost for all of the FREE DVD's and tapes we have sent out...OK?

It's OK to have a website and when those companies offered to do a book and DVD series, we said yes...

And when A-11 Offense info started showing up on officiating web sites by Refs, I was asked to contribute and correct wrong info being spread by interested refs.

In terms of making the rules committee look bad, nothing could be further from the truth.

But again the question was about innovation in football...thank you.

As a reminder...

"After being involved in a game(s) featuring the A-11 Offense, why did the overwhelming majority of opposing coaches and officials view it as a positive innovation and healthy for the game?"

KB

[Mike L]

Jeeze, I thought this subject had already received it's well deserved burial.
Yep, it's legal. Yep, I believe it soon won't be. Yep, I continue to doubt officials have gotten as giddy about it as the coach represents. When was the last time any of us got all enthusiastic about the crazy things teams try? And yep, I believe if the coach doesn't want people to think he's marketing this idea, then he should not be posting his web site advertising it with a variety of products for SALE!

[goldenwings68]

Rule 7, section 2, Art 5b--states "...A player in the game under the exception MUST assume an INITIAL POSITION on his LOS between the ends and remain an ineligible forward-pass receiver during the down unless the pass is touched by B.

To me, an initial position would be after breaking the huddle, the players in under the exception, would immediately go take a position on the line of scrimmage---but according to the way this system works, after breaking the huddle, one player goes over the ball (the center, and the rest spread out and set behind the LOS and then shift into whatever play or formation they will use for the concerned play-----

To me, their initial position, was not on their LOS, but behind the LOS--thus, breaking the exception rule---

Comments, observations, agreements, disagreements???????!!!!!??