A-11 Offense ??

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by daggo66

Say what? It was simple to officiate. Now you have to be sure that the first pass is backward.

From the FED Press Release, dated January 21, 2005;

"The throwing of multiple passes in a down in high school football is not a very common occurrence," said Jerry Diehl, NFHS assistant director and liaison to the Football Rules Committee. "Because teams don't see it that often, confusion has existed regarding the second pass.

"Since teams rarely use this option, the committee determined it would be best to not allow more than one forward pass in an effort to reduce confusion regarding when pass interference rules are in effect for either team. This change should assist the offense, the defense and the game officials in determining when pass eligibility rules apply."

[daggo66]

What's your point? The post said it was confusing to "officiate fairly". That has nothing to do with confusing the defense because they don't see it often. Eligibilty was much less an issue than determining whether the pass was backward or not IMO.

[bigjohn]

The point is, that rule was changed to prevent confusion! A-11 is based on confusion!

[daggo66]

On that point we certainly agree!

[bigjohn]

1. Page 96 in 2007 Rule Book details the Coaches Code of Ethics. One such code states "The coach shall master the contest rules and shall teach them to his or her team members. The coach shall not seek an advantage by circumvention of the spirit or letter of the rules." I believe the A-11 does take advantage by circumvention of the intent of the exception to numbering for scrimmage kick plays, since the coach has no intention of actually scrimmage kicking the ball away. As such, the Federation should comment on this particular offense as it pertains to the intent of scrimage kick exceptions.

[KurtBryan]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

1. Page 96 in 2007 Rule Book details the Coaches Code of Ethics. One such code states "The coach shall master the contest rules and shall teach them to his or her team members. The coach shall not seek an advantage by circumvention of the spirit or letter of the rules." I believe the A-11 does take advantage by circumvention of the intent of the exception to numbering for scrimmage kick plays, since the coach has no intention of actually scrimmage kicking the ball away. As such, the Federation should comment on this particular offense as it pertains to the intent of scrimage kick exceptions.

Reply:

A. Those items you listed were reviewed during the approval process and were part of our submission package, and discussed in detail with the interpreter before approval. The Coaches Code of Ethics, "not in the spirit of the rules or game, and the travesty" issue were never close to killing the approval, but it was a fair question nevertheless.

B. The A-11 is Not based on confusion, it is based on potentially eligible players and legally creating more possible options. But still, only 5 possible WR's on each play.

Sincerely,

KB

PS - Little bit of an update: As of today, there are now at least 3 states who have contacted us that will teach their officiating crews about the A-11 offense. That is not a bad thing...they have picked up either our Las Lomas or St. Mary's DVD (clearest videos to watch) and how to properly officiate it, and how to properly determine the Eligibles and Ineligibles. (If you happen to Ref in those states you will be contacted and/or you already know about the large or small group training for Officials - and it's not for me to advertise which states. Respectfully, and like I have been saying all along - there is a significant part of the football world who DO view our offense as innovative and worth looking at in terms of what it might/can do for the game from a coaches or officials viewpoint, etc.)

And so, like that one Ref who was so kind to point out in his earlier letter, this will make all of the officials in his state learn the rules even better and become better officials by learning how to officiate when handling an A-11 game or other similar types of offenses. And my point has been all along - we work together, communicate together and learn together. We learn from you Officials and hopefully you might learn a tad bit from us too...

[Mike L]

not only that, but I'm sure it will generate a cure for cancer soon too.

[daggo66]

A. The CA rules interpreter may have a given you the green light, but don't assume that means all of the NFHS has. IMO they tend to take the path of least resistence. My opinion is that the more this grows, the more of a chance it will end.

B. I really don't see how you can state that this formation is not based on confusion. The entire premise is that the eligible receivers are not readily apparent to the defensive. Webster's offers this defintion of confuse: to make indistinct and to fail to differentiate from an often similar or related other

I really believe that the more you push this Billy Mays, oops, I mean Kurt, the sooner you will bring about it's demise. There really can only be two outcomes to this. One is to make it completely legal and do away with the numbering restriction completely or to close the exception loophole as Bob M has suggested by making it like the NCAA rule.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by waltjp

From the FED Press Release, dated January 21, 2005;

"The throwing of multiple passes in a down in high school football is not a very common occurrence," said Jerry Diehl, NFHS assistant director and liaison to the Football Rules Committee. "Because teams don't see it that often, confusion has existed regarding the second pass.

"Since teams rarely use this option, the committee determined it would be best to not allow more than one forward pass in an effort to reduce confusion regarding when pass interference rules are in effect for either team. This change should assist the offense, the defense and the game officials in determining when pass eligibility rules apply."

The same excuse Fed gave for banning kicks following possession change during a down, and which they could use to outlaw any tactic that falls into disuse.

Robert