A-11 Offense ??

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Mike L

I would submit there are plenty of problems managing this type of game.

And yet it was that way for decades after the forward pass was legalized, with fewer officials on the field than now.

Consider rugby, where there's just the referee keeping track of who's onside following a kick. And unlike Canadian football since 1970, in rugby offside players can still be put onside by the kicker or (in RU) a teammate who was onside at the time the ball was kicked.

Just because you've had it relatively easy since before you started officiating doesn't mean it'll always be that easy. You may have to study some old mechanics on how they kept track of eligible receivers without their having to wear "eligible" numbers.

Robert

[KurtBryan]

In response to BktBallRef's reply of..."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."

....That Article 9-9-4 you are referencing was already reviewed and the offense was approved, and it was made clear during the approval process this offense does not make a travesty of the game and it is not an unfair act.

KB

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

And yet it was that way for decades after the forward pass was legalized, with fewer officials on the field than now.

Consider rugby, where there's just the referee keeping track of who's onside following a kick. And unlike Canadian football since 1970, in rugby offside players can still be put onside by the kicker or (in RU) a teammate who was onside at the time the ball was kicked.

Just because you've had it relatively easy since before you started officiating doesn't mean it'll always be that easy. You may have to study some old mechanics on how they kept track of eligible receivers without their having to wear "eligible" numbers.

Robert

So you're solution is to just get ready to officiate in a manner of yore that was changed because of situations that resembled this same problem and was recognized as unfair and/or difficult? I don't get the logic there at all.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by KurtBryan

In response to BktBallRef's reply of..."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."

....That Article 9-9-4 you are referencing was already reviewed and the offense was approved, and it was made clear during the approval process this offense does not make a travesty of the game and it is not an unfair act.

If a state association chooses to penalize it under 9-9-4, there's not a damn thing that you or anyone else can do about it.

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

If a state association chooses to penalize it under 9-9-4, there's not a damn thing that you or anyone else can do about it.

Exactly. As Bob mentioned the NFHS has not mentioned this formation (and that's all it really is) either for or against. Just because the CA state interpreter has said it is ok, that won't necessarily hold true in other states. Let's not forget that this is one small school in one state running this formation. When it's put in perspective, it's understandable why there is no reason for the NFHS to bother addressing it. Maybe if sales pick up (let's not forget this is about $ for KB) then the NFHS will see fit to address it.

Tom

[IceGator8]

Kurt,

I've got to chime in. I think your promoting your new innovation is commendable. It's good to see people trying to innovate the game.

With that said I think that sometimes you are overly defensive. Many of us have played and coached as well as officiated and have a deep love for the game. We have a vested interest in helping to preserve the integrity of the game we officiate. New innovations are great but ultimately they must pass the muster of not only the NFHS officials but also the game officials that have to apply the rules on the field. My state representative spends a lot of time receiving feedback from officials before he goes to his NFHS meetings.

I agree that at this point your offense is legal under current NFHS rules. However, while your advocacy is commendable I think you have to be thick skinned about any critical feedback you receive. Officials have just as much invested in the game as you and many of them will not like your offense. This dislike will not be personal but it will be frank and might sting a bit. I am undecided on whether your offense is good for the game of football. I think your innovation is taking advantage of an exception. However, the manner in which you take advantage in no way resembles the reason for the exception.

I would expect within the next year or two the NFHS will have to take steps to legitimize your new offense or close the loophole that allows it. I'm curious how you will react if the decision goes against your offense. I will predict that in two years the loophole will be closed and the A11 will be a footnote in football history. There are simply too many purists in the coaching, officiating, and rule deciding ranks and these purists hold most of the power.

I understand that your team may be overmatched in some cases. However this is more of a issue for those that govern the divisions in your area. I think that a better way to handle the issue is to place your school in a division with others schools of similar size. I'd hate to see football in general possibly screwed up because a smaller school found a loophole that allowed it to compete with much larger schools. If allowed to continue the larger schools will just adopt the offense and then beat you at your own game because they can draw from a much larger pool of talent. If a sizable percentage of schools adopt your offense then all of a sudden football as we know it doesn't exist anymore. This will NOT sit well with a great many people involved in the game. I for one do not want to see football change much from where it is.

[daggo66]

I don't think there will be any changes in the game of football because of this formation. Regardless of what number the players wear, you still need the skilled players to be able to run the spread offense. This formation will rely on those players also being pass blockers. I can't speak for CA, but in MD this formation wouldn't survive the preseason without legitimate pass and run blocking. I will also add that officiating with this formation is no big deal either. We deal with it all the time in youth football where they don't use the numbering system at all. The only issue is that quite often you will miss an ineligible downfield. I'm sure this has already happened with KB's team, He keeps saying that he was not penalized all year for ineligible downfield. I can only say no ****. That doesn't mean it didn't happen and that is a problem at the varsity level. I would love to see a complete and good quality game film of one of those games, not the parent tapes he keeps posting where you really can't see what is going on.

[KurtBryan]

Thanks for the well thought out replies.

I have and do respect everybody who states an opinion and not a personal attack, whether it be like-minded or not compared to mine. Always have and always will.

1. Please be kind enough to drop the "we all know this is about money" lie...either you choose to be of a damaging personality type by spreading lies or you cannot read, either way it is bad news for you. So please drop it...

2. Never did I say we did Not have any illegal WR downfield all season long, but rarely, because each player has a role on each play. And, we teach our ineligibles on each play to block or decoy away from the l.o.s.

3. Yes, I know there are many officials who have played the game and love the game - same goes for us coaches, and the players we work with

4. Thick skin: yes, I understand and my skin is thick and scarred, but then again, most anybody who has coached for 22 years can say that

5. Future of the game and football purists: If we could ask coaches & officials from 25 - 50 years ago or 100 years ago if today's brand of football is pure, I wonder what the answer would be? The game of football evolves at a rapid rate or becomes tiresome...and none of us wants that.

6. Football will hopefully ever evolve and it most certainly will not look the same 10 or 20 years from now - it will either adapt or die, and we know football will not become extinct.

7. On our offense and becoming a note in football history - the game is moving in the direction of the A-11 offense - more spread out - that is why so many people (but not all) who coached against or officiated our games LIVE enjoyed watching it. It is something new. The spread will only become more spread out - not less, etc. But that does not mean that everybody has to Use it or Like it.

8. Is the A-11 here to stay? Nothing will be better for the game than to see it blossom over the next couple of years and then have a national debate within our coaching/officiating fraternity: either for it or against it.

9. Like the officials said who actually worked our games - it is much easier to officiate in person than on a chalkboard.

10. For 21 years I was an under the center - never use the shotgun - type of coach. I saw where the game was going and decided to Join it rather than get swallowed up by it.

11. About realignment of leagues to suit our enrollment. That is done by the sections in the CIF: We have no control over it and that is why the CIF is being sued by another school here in the bay area for unfair something or another....

12. Lastly in the future, maybe football historians will look back at this time period 2000 - 2015 as a key era in revolutionizing the game into a more dynamic high speed sport that maximizes athletic potential while still incorporating blocking and tackling? Will the A-11 be a cog in the wheel of the spread attack style offenses? Yes of course, but will that hurt the game or cause it to morph into something that is Not typical old fashioned football? To be blunt, that has already happened before the A-11 hit the field, so all of us must either adapt or perish because we cannot change.

I for one understand the credo Bill Walsh told me - "To be successful, you need to be flexible."


Thanks for the candor...

KB

[daggo66]

Numbers 1 and 2 are obviously directed at my post.


1. What lies? You have a web site devoted to your formation (which is solely based on a rule exception). You are selling items on that web site so that others may also learn how to use this formation. It's interesting that whenever I bring it up and you reply, you leave the website off of your reply. If it were altruistic there would be no fee for the information, therefore it is about money. If I am wrong then please show me where coaches in my area can get this information for free. Several teams in our area run this offense, minus your formation exception and might be interested.

2. In several of you early posts you bragged that you were never called for an ineligible receiver downfield all year. I merely contend that is exactly what the problem officials are concerned about with this formation. You now agree with me that you possibly did have ineligible players downfield and it wasn't called. That is the only issue with your exception formation. It's difficult to spot the ineligibles. During the course of a normal play it is easy to lose track of ineligble players, it could be a run fake or a broken play. Possibly a double reverse that turned into a pass at the last moment and there may have been more than one penalty flag already tossed. Now the umpire spots A52 7 yards downfield as he turns once the ball is throw. He knows he has a penalty. Same situation except A22 was in the game instead of A52. When the umpire sees A22 downfield, unless he duly noted his eligibility status at the snap and could recall it without the shadow of a doubt after all that just transpired, chances are he will not throw the flag because he has some doubt. That is the problem with this formation. You can deal with it when it is a punt situation. A clean snap and a kick, no problem. Muffed or bad snap, or a fake situation (close game, close yardage) you watch for ineligibles because you know you will most likely have them. Your formation requires too much needless attention by the officials to constantly determine who is or isn't eligible.
I know that your next reply is that several crews from several groups had no problem with your formation and they all endorse it yada, yada, yada. That is all coming from you. Why don't you let us hear it from them? I would love to speak to the commissioner of your officiating group. Give him this forum and have him come on or invite him to email me directly at [email protected]

[KurtBryan]

Thanks Tom, here is the web site again, we have traded lots of info for free, it you don't believe it, nothing I can do. However, if and when companies contact you direct because they want to spread the word about your great idea - whatever it is - I will root for you to succeed.

1. Never, ever said we did not get called for ineligible wr's downfield it just did not happen very often because of the roles each player must do on each play - go back and read my earlier posts more closely.

2. By now most guys on this and other boards know our web site

3. Many officials have emailed or contacted me direct and all of my contact info is posted on here and on our site - so pick up the phone if you need my help on something and I will gladly talk to you, etc.

4. It is easy to contact the key officials in our area - just look it up.

Sincerely,

KB
www.A11Offense.com
510-410-4717

[daggo66]

1. Ok, I stand corrected you didn't say never. Here is what you said:
We change the snap count often and do get illegal procedure calls, and normal amount of holding calls, but very, very rare for illegal man downfield at all.


2. Ok, so why did you add it again? (that was a rhetorical question)

3. I don't need your help with anything. I just wanted to know if you were willing to share your information with other coaches for free.

4. This isn't what keeps me up at night. I don't want to search to find out what group officiates your games and who their commisioner is. Most coaches have that information readily available. Instead of testimonials, I just thought it would be interesting to hear from the game officials directly. I'm not surprised that you don't want that to happen.

[KurtBryan]

Tom:

Thanks for recanting your words, shows class.

* Many of the officials who worked our games made their opinions clear to me and several to their superiors, and a lot of the top guys to their top guy...so that has been relayed to yours truly directly and indirectly.

I also know that at few of them have already been interviewed for articles forthcoming - and that should be most informative for all to read.

Take care,

KB

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Mike L

So you're solution is to just get ready to officiate in a manner of yore that was changed because of situations that resembled this same problem and was recognized as unfair and/or difficult? I don't get the logic there at all.

"Recognized as unfair and/or difficult"? Was the game unfair or difficult all those years before the forward pass was legalized? Was it unfair or difficult when a ballcarrier whose knee touched the ground wasn't automatically down? Was it unfair or difficult when a live ball could always be kicked? Was it unfair or difficult when coaching from the sidelines was forbidden? No, just different.

Robert

[bigjohn]

Why was the double pass taken out of HS football? Not because it was unfair. Because it was difficult to officiate fairly.

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

Why was the double pass taken out of HS football? Not because it was unfair. Because it was difficult to officiate fairly.

Say what? It was simple to officiate. Now you have to be sure that the first pass is backward.