You are stepping on some real shaky ground once you start to think about penalizing a team for doing something you personally do not like. And attempting to justify those thoughts by using the "mockery" rule is even worse.
There appears to be a lot of attempts to misapply language in the rules to fit how one "feels" about this offense. The bottom line is this offense, under the current rule interpretations, is legal. Personally, I don't like the use of the exception in this manner. There are plenty of things coaches & players do that I don't like. But that doesn't mean I'm going to penalize them for it unless I absolutely know it is a rule violation.

Mike, I am a coach and not an offcial. My opinion means very little I know.

This offense is just as much breaking the rules as "wrong ball" is!

You could be right, but your opinion does not a rule make. Just as not long ago there was no specific rule or interpretation that prevented the wrong ball play, there is no current rule or interp that prevents this offense. There may be in the near future, but we can't apply what MAY happen tomorrow to today's rules.

But we are only one NFHS casebook interpretation away from the whole offense being illegal?

REPLY: OK...so the game begins and after the opponents punt following a three-and-out, the A11 team trots eleven players numbered 1-49 or 80-99 onto the field. Nothing illegal about that. But begs the questions: Which of those eleven are you saying "must" line up inside the ends? Which of those eleven are you saying are there "under the exception?" Answer to both questions: There's no way to determine that. So at this initial point, there's NO person who must immediately run to a position between the ends on the LOS. And there's no one (yet) operating under the exception.

Here's where the rule applies. As soon as any of them take a position on the line between the ends, he's an exception--period. Up until he does that, there's no way in Hades that anyone can determine who the exceptions are. Eventually however, there will be at least five of them (including possibly the snapper). There may be more if a player takes a position under the exception and then because of a shift ends up somewhere other than between the ends.

I understand completely why the numbering exception was inserted into the Fed rule book. Here's the reason, quoted from the Comments on the Rules Revisions in the 1982 rule book: They said it was done “…in order for a coach to more effectively use the talents of his players…in kicking situations.” In order to facilitate this rule, they needed also to add a definition for a scrimmage kick formation.

Do I believe that the A11 is taking advantage of a 'loophole' in the numbering exception rule? Yes.
Do I believe it's illegal as the rules are currently constructed? Absolutely not.
Will the Fed deal with this for the 2009 season? Maybe...who knows. If so, the NCAA rule may be the way to go.

REPLY: Based upon past history, you're exactly right. But I would hope that they'd also change the rules to align with any such case play.

update
 

Dear Officials:

This should help you all:

1. There are NO problems in California with Officials managing a game involving the A-11 offense - a Fact is Fact.

And so, respectfully to the guy who said there was a huge problem in CA - that is completely wrong and the opposite of what took place in 2007. Again, 11 different officiating crews in three different regions of NorCal worked our games - that is easy to verify so please deal in the facts.

2. The A-11 was already reviewed under many criteria and one of them was: did it make a travesty of the game? - the answer was no, not at all.

3. Case Rule Book Interpretation: The offense is legal, has an entire season under its belt already with actual living breathing officials working the games - with NO problems - so those interpretations have already been documented, and the offense is legal because of the rules (BktBallRef is correct).

Do we substitute players numbered #50 - 79 and #1-49 or 80 -99 throughout the game? Yes, of course.

4. Humbly, there are a lot of coaches who like what this offense brings to the game (but not everybody likes it - as is the case with any offense), and many coaches believe the future of the game is headed this way, etc.

Thank you.

KB

REPLY: Might as well respond here too. Thanks for the update. I agree that the offense is legal...for now, but I must take some exception to the way you represent its review and disposition.

You mentioned that this has been covered with a Case Book interpretation. I'm sorry, but there is nothing in the case book to cover the A11. And you mention that "...those interpretations have already been documented." I've searched the National Federation web site where they document any case book additions/revisions. The last entry was for the beginning of the 2007 season. There is no play referencing the A11 or even any mention of it. Just where is this documented so that everyone can see it? Certainly doesn't seem to be documented by the Fed. Unless documented by them on their website, everything else is just opinion.

I would submit there are plenty of problems managing this type of game. I think it would be better to say the officials found nothing illegal per the rules about it.

Not much to add here, since I agree as far as rule interpretation is involved. I still believe we will see a rule revision to the exception however, so the desire to use the travesty rule will not be necessary.

This makes me wonder if you have the correct idea of what the case book is and it's interpretations. The case book is produced by the NFHS and consists of specific play examples and what the correct rulings would be. It is often used to clarify rules that might be confusing. The officials that worked your games did not provide case book documentation by what they ruled.

Ruleswise, what coaches think some "innovation" brings to the game or what may be the "future" of the game is of no relevance.

addendum
 

** Thanks and Yes, I meant it has set a precedent by being utilized for 11 games in the 2007 season, and it should be assumed that it WILL be listed in the upcoming NFHS case book as being legal, thanks for clarifying that for us.

REPLY: But since the A11 was not discussed in full committee at last weekend's Rules Committee Meeting in Indianapolis (and that is a fact), there will be no mention of the A11 (for or against) in the 2008 rule or case books...that is unless the Federation sets a new precedent.

sounds good
 

Thanks Bob, and I was told that too, I appreciate the clarification.

KB:)

However, it could still be addressed in the annual interpretations. I have no idea if it will or not.

It matters not to me. My state will be penalizing it under 9-9-4 as an unfair act. I'm gald I don't have to fool with the nonsense.

No, or at least I'm not.

Yes. The definition is clear.

It's not the first time a rule change was intended to accomplish one thing but had unintended side effects. I'm sure when the relevant timing rules were established, it was not their intention to have players deliberately stop the clock by running out of bounds or throwing low percentage passes.

Robert

I don't think so. Read it and tell me when it's not obvious a kick (any type of kick -- could be a drop kick) may be forthcoming?

If they want to do something like that, they'll have to limit it to 4th down and tries, rather than a judgement of when a kick may (rather than "will") occur. And if a team wants to kick on another down, they just won't have the exception to take advantage of.

Or they can go back to the pullover jerseys.

Or they can scrap the numbering requirement and go back to the way it was for decades. Or have the ends raise a hand to declare themselves eligible, as is done one version of 8-a-side touch football where there's only one end eligible to receive forward passes.

Or just scrap the exception and not even allow pullover jerseys.

Or report eligible as in the NFL and some minor leagues.

Robert