A-11 Offense ??

[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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by TXMike

Yes, BUT>>>>> that deception is limited to a maximum of 5 potential receivers. Your concept makes 10 potential receivers. This is patently unfair.

Difficult to administer, sure. Patently unfair, absurd.

Over the years there have been times certain things about football have declared inviolate, saying not just that the rules are (at a given time) such-and-such, but that they must always remain so because to do otherwise would be unfair, against the spirit of the game, etc. And then they changed them.

During the time I've followed football, such has been the case with use of the hands & arms in blocking. At some point in the 19th Century, after interference had become an accepted part of the game, it was decided, well, that's OK, as long as they don't hold. And then in fairly short order it was decided that using the hands & arms to push was as bad as holding, and that's the way it stayed for generations. Statements were put into the rule book by Parke Davis and others saying not only that the rule was the rule, but that use of the hands might make for an interesting game, but not one to be called "football". In other words, the rule for that time on use of the hands & arms was taken to be a defining characteristic of football.

Anyway, for various considerations regarding safety, ease of administration, and desired balance between offense & defense (which of course is a matter of momentary taste), that all changed. From requiring the hands & arms to be kept close to the body and the palms facing away from the opponent, it's now been changed to legalize pushing. Still not holding or pulling, but pushing. What about all the old statements about that not being football any longer? Gee, I guess if we're playing football now, that must not have been football then!

And so on. The forward pass was "unfair" and "not football". Similarly free substitution. Similarly helmets. Similarly blocking. They even took the goals off the goal lines; the pros did so twice! (Yeah, yeah, juggler, we know.)

Where this A-11 is going, who knows. If I had to, I'd guess Fed will do away with it by bringing back the pullover numbers. But don't pretend there's something inherent about football that requires its removal.

Robert

[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

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by 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.

A truly outstanding post!!

[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???????!!!!!??