A-11 Offense ??

[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.

[goldenwings68]

Spirit of the rule????

Not saying this offense does this--but it is something to ponder, consider, talk about, look at, examine and think about---

Rule 9, Section 9, Art 4 "Neither team shall commit any act which, in the OPINION, of the referee, tends to make a travasty of the game."

It certainly doesn't follow or go by the intent of the excetion to the rule, which in my opinion, comes close to basically saying "screw the rule" and thus coming close to making a travasty of that rule.

It also borders on DECEPTION---

[bigjohn]

Now that is what I have been saying all along! 9-9-4! Travesty of the game. To Mock the rules or to use a loophole in the rules to ones advantage is definately covered by 9-9-4! We just need a caseplay like Where's the Tee! The numbering Exception is not in the rules to be used as an entire offense, it is an exception for a special play. That is why it was added and the Rules of the game do say there shall be 5 players numbered 50-79 on the offense EXCEPT when the numbering exception is invoked!

[Mike L]

You are stepping on some real shaky ground once you start to think about penalizing a team for doing something you personally do not like. And attempting to justify those thoughts by using the "mockery" rule is even worse.
There appears to be a lot of attempts to misapply language in the rules to fit how one "feels" about this offense. The bottom line is this offense, under the current rule interpretations, is legal. Personally, I don't like the use of the exception in this manner. There are plenty of things coaches & players do that I don't like. But that doesn't mean I'm going to penalize them for it unless I absolutely know it is a rule violation.

[bigjohn]

Mike, I am a coach and not an offcial. My opinion means very little I know.

This offense is just as much breaking the rules as "wrong ball" is!

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

Mike, I am a coach and not an offcial. My opinion means very little I know.

This offense is just as much breaking the rules as "wrong ball" is!

You could be right, but your opinion does not a rule make. Just as not long ago there was no specific rule or interpretation that prevented the wrong ball play, there is no current rule or interp that prevents this offense. There may be in the near future, but we can't apply what MAY happen tomorrow to today's rules.

[bigjohn]

But we are only one NFHS casebook interpretation away from the whole offense being illegal?

[Bob M.]

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?

REPLY: OK...so the game begins and after the opponents punt following a three-and-out, the A11 team trots eleven players numbered 1-49 or 80-99 onto the field. Nothing illegal about that. But begs the questions: Which of those eleven are you saying "must" line up inside the ends? Which of those eleven are you saying are there "under the exception?" Answer to both questions: There's no way to determine that. So at this initial point, there's NO person who must immediately run to a position between the ends on the LOS. And there's no one (yet) operating under the exception.

Here's where the rule applies. As soon as any of them take a position on the line between the ends, he's an exception--period. Up until he does that, there's no way in Hades that anyone can determine who the exceptions are. Eventually however, there will be at least five of them (including possibly the snapper). There may be more if a player takes a position under the exception and then because of a shift ends up somewhere other than between the ends.

I understand completely why the numbering exception was inserted into the Fed rule book. Here's the reason, quoted from the Comments on the Rules Revisions in the 1982 rule book: They said it was done “…in order for a coach to more effectively use the talents of his players…in kicking situations.” In order to facilitate this rule, they needed also to add a definition for a scrimmage kick formation.

Do I believe that the A11 is taking advantage of a 'loophole' in the numbering exception rule? Yes.
Do I believe it's illegal as the rules are currently constructed? Absolutely not.
Will the Fed deal with this for the 2009 season? Maybe...who knows. If so, the NCAA rule may be the way to go.