A-11 Offense ??

[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?