A-11 Offense ??

[jtex]

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.

[Suudy]

Originally Posted by jtex

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.

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.

[TXMike]

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.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by TXMike

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...

[jaybird]

Originally Posted by Welpe

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!

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by jtex

I think this is very creative! I must applaud Coach Bryan and his staff's creativity!

Hmmm...

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

[jtex]

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

[Welpe]

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

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Bob M.

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.

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.

[TXMike]

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. ;-)

[JugglingReferee]

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

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

[Bob M.]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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.

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."

[ajmc]

"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.

[Mike L]

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.

[Bob M.]

Originally Posted by Mike L

...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.