A-11 Offense ??

[goldenwings68]

My interpt??????

Rule 7, Section 2, Art 5b.....Exception: When A sets or shiefts into a scrimmage-kick formation any A player numbered 1-49 or 80-99 MAY TAKE THE POSITION of any A player numbered 50 to 79. A player IN THE GAME under this EXCEPTION----MUST assume an initial position on his line of scrimmage between the ends and he REMAINS an ineligible forward-pass receiver during that down unless the pass is touched by B.

So, in my opinion, if 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 come in for 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, they then have to be on the line between the ends----but according to this formation, those five players join the other six, say numbered, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 as the offensive team for that play and the next play, and the next, etc, and each play, a different set of numbers go on the line and others remain the eligible players---thus, who are the players in as the exception players?

How many plays can you do back to back under the exception before it is no longer an exception, but the rule?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by goldenwings68

My interpt??????

Rule 7, Section 2, 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 to 79. A player IN THE GAME under this EXCEPTION----MUST assume an initial position on his line of scrimmage between the ends and he REMAINS an ineligible forward-pass receiver during that down unless the pass is touched by B.

You'd better read that rule again, particularly the part that says "ANY A player numbered" and "MAY take the position."

When 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 come into the game, they are NOT REQUIRED to take the positions of 50, 51, 52, 53, and 53. They MAY take those positions or any of the 11 players in the game at that point MAY take those positions.

Further, the POSITION only applies to their final position on the LOS.

Sorry partner. Your interp of the rule doesn't hold water.

[goldenwings68]

NO---The rule is stating that the coach MAY replace any player numbered 50-79 with any player numbered 1-49 or 80-99 and if the coach does do this in a SKF, he is using the Exception part of Rule 7, Section 2, Art 5--the rule then states that a player in under that exception, let me quote the rule here---"A player in the game under this exception MUST assume an initial position on his LOS between the ends...."

There are normally 5 players in the game wearing 50-79, the interior line, all inelgible receivers---this offense, takes those five guys out of the game, replaces them with five guys wearing 1-49 or 80-99, all eligible, thus making 11 eligible receivers in the game---Now, as the rule states, those in the game under the exception, you know, those that replaced those five offensive linemen, are supposed to assume a position on their LOS between the ends---now, on one play, they might, but on another only a couple do and a couple more of the other eligibles assumne those positions, and on the next, another group of them do---now, no one has left the field during this series and on each play, a different set of guys became lineman--The original rule, the exception was designed for the coach to replace a few interior linemen with more agile type players on a scrimmage kick situation to go down under the punt----

This is not happening here in this offense--the exception is no longer the exception and has become the rule due to bending of the rule and officials not following the spirit nor intent of the rule. In other words, there is no longer a replacement of players wearing 50-79 by players wearing 1-49 or 80-99 because no one ever came into the game wearing 50-79 to be replaced by a player wearing 1-49 or 80-99 and they are not punting on those plays---

Again, you can say I am messed up here, but you know and I know, this is a giant bending of the rule and becoming a gross miscarriage of fair play/sportsmanship.

[BktBallRef]

Let me ask you something. 6 eligible numbers and 5 ineligible numbers are on the field. After the down is over, all 5 ineligible players leave the field ALONG with 3 of the eligible numbers. 8 eligible numbers now enter the field. All 11 leave the field and 11 eligible numbers enter the field. How do you know who replaced who? YOU DON'T.

"...ANY A player numbered 1-49 or 80-99 MAY take the position of any A player numbered 50 to 79."

That's crystal clear. ANY A player MAY take those 5 positions. It does NOT have to be the 5 players who just came into the game.

You're wrong. That's why no one else is agreeing with you.

[goldenwings68]

I really could care less whether anyone agrees with me or not--the fact remains--read the ruleWhch states--"A player in the game under the exception must assume an initial position on his line of scrimmage..."

Now you are telling me we could have 11 players in the game under the exception????? There are only five players that fit the original intent of the exception rule--those that normally wear numbers between 50 and 79-According to you, the coach could send in eleven players in under the exception and any of those eleven can become the five on any play without ever leaving the field---Thus no player wearing the number 50-79 to be replaced by a player wearing a number 1-49 or 80-99. Now, tell me again where I am mistaken?

You're telling me that from the very start of a game, this offence can take the field never having a player out on the field with a number 50-79 and be in a scrimmage kick formation the entire game using players numbering 1-49 or 80-99? Can you tell me where the exception to the rule applies here? Is this the intent of the exception?

[TXMike]

Originally Posted by goldenwings68

You're telling me that from the very start of a game, this offence can take the field never having a player out on the field with a number 50-79 and be in a scrimmage kick formation the entire game using players numbering 1-49 or 80-99? Can you tell me where the exception to the rule applies here? Is this the intent of the exception?

That is the crux of the argument on the A-11 isn't it? That Team A can "cutesy" it's way around the numbering requirement by being in the NFHS loosely defined " scrimmage kick formation" ?

[goldenwings68]

Rule 7 section 2, Art 5b reads----"At the snap at least five players on the line of scrimmage MUST be numbered 50-79..."

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 to 79 (meaning five players can be sent in to meet this exception)

This offense is allowing the coach to start the game or any set of downs with 11 players on the field wearing numbers 1-49 or 80-99 without ever having five players on the field numbering 50-79 and operating in the SKR the entire game and never using the exception because he never had any players meeting the requirements of wearing the numbers 50-79---Thus in my opinion, breaking the rule from the start.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by goldenwings68

I really could care less whether anyone agrees with me or not--the fact remains--read the ruleWhch states--"A player in the game under the exception must assume an initial position on his line of scrimmage..."

Really then why did you post "Comments, observations, agreements, disagreements???????!!!!!??"

Originally Posted by goldenwings68

This offense is allowing the coach to start the game or any set of downs with 11 players on the field wearing numbers 1-49 or 80-99 without ever having five players on the field numbering 50-79 and operating in the SKR the entire game and never using the exception because he never had any players meeting the requirements of wearing the numbers 50-79---Thus in my opinion, breaking the rule from the start.

There's no requirement the 50-79 players ever step on the field.

Like it or not, the system is presently legal.

But don't be concerned. It's not going to last. It will be addressed.

[jaybird]

Originally Posted by goldenwings68

NO---The rule is stating that the coach MAY replace any player numbered 50-79 with any player numbered 1-49 or 80-99 and if the coach does do this in a SKF, he is using the Exception part of Rule 7, Section 2, Art 5--the rule then states that a player in under that exception, let me quote the rule here---"A player in the game under this exception MUST assume an initial position on his LOS between the ends...."

There are normally 5 players in the game wearing 50-79, the interior line, all inelgible receivers---this offense, takes those five guys out of the game, replaces them with five guys wearing 1-49 or 80-99, all eligible, thus making 11 eligible receivers in the game---Now, as the rule states, those in the game under the exception, you know, those that replaced those five offensive linemen, are supposed to assume a position on their LOS between the ends---now, on one play, they might, but on another only a couple do and a couple more of the other eligibles assumne those positions, and on the next, another group of them do---now, no one has left the field during this series and on each play, a different set of guys became lineman--The original rule, the exception was designed for the coach to replace a few interior linemen with more agile type players on a scrimmage kick situation to go down under the punt----

This is not happening here in this offense--the exception is no longer the exception and has become the rule due to bending of the rule and officials not following the spirit nor intent of the rule. In other words, there is no longer a replacement of players wearing 50-79 by players wearing 1-49 or 80-99 because no one ever came into the game wearing 50-79 to be replaced by a player wearing 1-49 or 80-99 and they are not punting on those plays---

Again, you can say I am messed up here, but you know and I know, this is a giant bending of the rule and becoming a gross miscarriage of fair play/sportsmanship.

Actually, I think goldenwings68 is on to something here based on the portion of the rule that states, "A player in the game under this exception MUST assume an initial position on his LOS between the ends....". This seems to "lock in" 5 players in the game under the exception who have replaced the 5 players numbered 50-79 that are required by rule. Therefore, these 5 players should report to an official (probably the U).

[goldenwings68]

BKTBALL--

As stated, yes, I asked for comments, concerns, disagreements, etc, but you were telling me why no one agreed with me and I was just telling you that in reality, my posting here isn't gauged by pe3ople liking me or agreeing with me--sorry, but it isn't my nature to try and get people to like me---

I was a Marine for 30 years and I have been a football official for 22 years and believe me, people liking or disliking me doesn't mean agreat deal.

I am here voicing my dislike for what this offense represents which is a complete disregard for the spirit and intent of the exception rule for SKF and I still believe the way it is being done is illegal in the fact that there are no 50-79 numbered players on the field to be replaced under the exception rule.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by jaybird

Therefore, these 5 players should report to an official (probably the U).

There is absolutely, positively no such requirement.

Originally Posted by goldenwings68

I was a Marine for 30 years and I have been a football official for 22 years and believe me, people liking or disliking me doesn't mean agreat deal.

No one has said anything about disliking you. Get the chip off your shoulder, Marine. You're simply aren't interpreting the rule correctly, as evidenced by the fact that posters in 2 other forums as well as this one do not accept that interp. I've given you the reasons why and you haven't offered a thing to disapprove them.

I'm done

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by jaybird

Actually, I think goldenwings68 is on to something here based on the portion of the rule that states, "A player in the game under this exception MUST assume an initial position on his LOS between the ends....". This seems to "lock in" 5 players in the game under the exception who have replaced the 5 players numbered 50-79 that are required by rule. Therefore, these 5 players should report to an official (probably the U).

You're missing a couple of points. First, there is no requirement for any player to report his position to anyone. Eligibility is determined by two factors - number and position. No amount of reporting will change either of those facts.

Second, The players in the game under the numbering exception for scrimmage kick formations is not determined when they enter the field. Rather, it's determined when and where they line up.

Following a third down play A players numbered 51 thru 55 leave the field and are replaced by A players 31 thru 35. On forth down A10 assumes a position as a snapper with the team in scrimmage kick formation. Using GW's logic this would be illegal because A10 didn't come in the game to replace any of the players numbered A51-A55. This is simply not true.

[goldenwings68]

Using my logic????

This formation/offense from what I have seen and heard, never puts any players on the field wearing 50-79, but yet puts out 11 players wearing 1-49 or 80-99 on every offensive play--they are repalcing players that never entered the game.

1. Are any of you going to tell me that this is the intent of the exception?
2. Are you going to tell me that on every offensive play for a team using this offense it is a SKF situation?


Using this formation on every offensive play, in my book, represents a gross misapplication of the exception by the team using it and again, in my book, comes close to being considered an unfair act as stated in Rule 9. I look at the intent of the SKF exception, why it was introduced and how it was intended to be used and this offense does not meet that criteria-----it is a loop-hole with many holes in it.

When I call a game, I call the by the rules--using their intent as a guideline----in looking at this offense in that line of thinking, I could not sit here at tell you it was legal or in the intent of the exception rule---can you???


Rule 7, Section 2, Art 5b states the following "At the snap, at least five playerss on the LOS MUST be numbered 50-79..."

What was the intent of this rule?

Exception---When A sets or shifts into a SKF, any A player 1-49-80 may take a position of any A player numbered 50-79---A player in the game UNDER that exception MUST assume an initial position on his LOS between the ends........"

What was the intent here?

I read it to mean that when a team goes into punt formation (SKF), they can bring in up to five players to replace their interior linemen (players numbered 50-79) for the purpose of getting faster, more agile players in the game to go down under the punt (SK)---

This offense has eliminated the players wearing 50-79 and instead fields 11 players wearing 1-49 or 80-99 on every play, saying they are just replacing those five players wearing 50-79 because they are in a SKF on every play.


This is certainly not the intent of the excetion to Rule 7, Section 2, Article 5b.

Am I missing something here?

[TXMike]

You are not missing the intent. You are exactly right. And most officials agree with you on the intent, although clearly there are a few in the minority. The coach who started this may or may not agree that it is the intent of the rule but has chosen to exploit the NFHS wording and operate counter to the intent.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by goldenwings68

1. Are any of you going to tell me that this is the intent of the exception?
2. Are you going to tell me that on every offensive play for a team using this offense it is a SKF situation?

Nobody, except maybe Coach Bryan, is arguing that this is not a violation of the spirit of the rule. However, we don't penalize something that violates the spirit of the rule, only actual infractions of the rule.

On question 1, yes, I agree, this was not the intent of the exception.

On question 2 I'll tell you to penalize the team if they are not in scrimmage kick formation. If they are in a legal scrimmage kick formation they are abiding by the rule. NFHS has no language anywhere that states when a scrimmage kick formation may be used. That is the essence of the problem.