A-11 Offense ??

[KurtBryan]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Billy Mays is another snake oil salesman who, at times, gives the impression he invented what he is selling, when he actually hasn't.

He's best known for the Oxyclean, Orange Glo and the Gopher Reaching Tool ads.

The similarity is quite keen.

To the Officials who compare yours truly to Billy Mays...

I guess most people would say Billy is successful, very, very successful now that I know who he is...in fact I bought his knife sharperners last year and they work great, and I really don't care if or if not he invented them.

* It is sad, very sad testimony to some of the folks on this board that revert to cutdowns on here, not all Refs, but just a few guys cannot help attacking people online - the LACK OF MATURITY by those people is astounding.

Keep it above the belt, please, so as to not lower the bar for the rest of the officials who either do not resort to personal attacks or choose to remain silent and only read the posts to keep informed.

"Silence can never be misquoted."

Sincerely,

KB

[daggo66]

Sorry if you take offense to my commentary Kurt, but I call them like I see them. It's not personal, I don't care who wins or loses as long as both sides play by the rules. In your case that remains to been seen. Your motives however are crystal clear. I'm not attacking you by comparing you to Billy Mays, I'm merely stating the obvious.

[bigjohn]

Well, I am willing to give KB credit for inventing this offense! So I say he is more like Ronco!

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

Well, I am willing to give KB credit for inventing this offense!

Why? He's not the first to use it. He may be the first to try to market it, though.

[bigjohn]

Sing, Garth!

[goldenwings68]

Pure travesty! Unfair act!!!

I contacted the FHSAA (Florida) and they sent it back to me and told me my local HS group and the youth group I run, would need to determine whether or not it met the Rule as specified in the NFHS rules book.

Will bring it up to my HS group when we meet in April. My youth group will be meeting next week and from all indications, it will be deemed an unfair act.

Until guidance from the FHSAA is forthcoming, our local group will make the decisions.

[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

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by daggo66

The game of football is one of the most popular sports there is. Some say that it is the true American pass time. That being said, don't look for whole sale changes. Changes come about when either the offense or defense seems to get one up on the other.

Many times they've changed things just for the hell of it. When they added the 2 point try, and when NCAA put in 2-way scoring for the try, those changes weren't a response to any problem. (IMO the best thing would've been just to abolish the try entirely.) Fed went thru a long period in which they progressively harmonized the rules for all free kicks until they were almost uniform, then they reversed themselves and started differentiating them again.

Robert

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by TXMike

I hear Canada is a nice place for this type of stuff. Why not take it there?

Because it would then be the A-12 offense..... How's their rule book written? Remember, in Canada a player with a number 70-79 is an eligible receiver. It always looks funny when a #77 is taking one to the house in that big end zone to celebrate in........

Besides Billy Mays is into the marketing side, not the development and production of said products. I don't think anyone should be offended with a full money back guarantee.

BTW-That OxyClean is very good stuff. Try it in laundry, especially your whites. Warm water, a little OxyClean and plastic bristle brush get the white on my base shoes looking brand new. Makes the black part nice and shiny, too.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Because it would then be the A-12 offense..... How's their rule book written? Remember, in Canada a player with a number 70-79 is an eligible receiver. It always looks funny when a #77 is taking one to the house in that big end zone to celebrate in........

Besides Billy Mays is into the marketing side, not the development and production of said products. I don't think anyone should be offended with a full money back guarantee.

BTW-That OxyClean is very good stuff. Try it in laundry, especially your whites. Warm water, a little OxyClean and plastic bristle brush get the white on my base shoes looking brand new. Makes the black part nice and shiny, too.

Our ineligibles are 40-69. Eligibles are outside of that range, and must be eligible by position as well. If there are any deviations from their status, they must report to the Referee, who will inform the defense before the RFP is blown in.

All in all, the Canadian game permits more freedom among the players' actions.

[Tim C]

" . . . It is sad, very sad testimony to some of the folks on this board that revert to cutdowns on here, not all Refs, but just a few guys cannot help attacking people online - the LACK OF MATURITY by those people is astounding."

Kurt, Kurt, Kurt . . .

Now you are telling us what to post. ~Sigh~

Perhaps you should stick with your marketing efforts on coaching websites.

All I know is that I have grown tired of your refrain.

Regards,

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by KurtBryan

Keep it above the belt, please, so as to not lower the bar for the rest of the officials who either do not resort to personal attacks or choose to remain silent and only read the posts to keep informed.

Ah! We have a new moderator!

BTW coach, how are sales these days?

[jtex]

I think this is very creative! I must applaud Coach Bryan and his staff's creativity!

It does bring out a few contridictions in the rules.

From the 2007 NCAA Rules:

Rule 1.4.1 states the numbering system is STRONGLY Recommended.

Rule 1.4.2 states 5 players number 50-79 must be on the LOS, but their is NO Requirement that #50 could not be the END.

Rule 7.1.3.a.4.c assumes all linemen between the ends are numbered between 50-79, but Rule 1.4.1 states that numbering system is strongly recommended.

Let's assume the rule is changed to require players be numbered bewteen 50-79. Does this mean the A-11 cannot be used. No it does not!

Rules do not state minimum or maximum required OL split. OL could be foot to foot or 10 yds. This does not change the A-11 CONCEPT.

[Bob M.]

Originally Posted by jtex

I think this is very creative! I must applaud Coach Bryan and his staff's creativity!

It does bring out a few contridictions in the rules.

From the 2007 NCAA Rules:

Rule 1.4.1 states the numbering system is STRONGLY Recommended.

Rule 1.4.2 states 5 players number 50-79 must be on the LOS, but their is NO Requirement that #50 could not be the END.

Rule 7.1.3.a.4.c assumes all linemen between the ends are numbered between 50-79, but Rule 1.4.1 states that numbering system is strongly recommended.

Let's assume the rule is changed to require players be numbered bewteen 50-79. Does this mean the A-11 cannot be used. No it does not!

Rules do not state minimum or maximum required OL split. OL could be foot to foot or 10 yds. This does not change the A-11 CONCEPT.

REPLY: jtex...Let's make sure we understand what the rules say about numbering:
1. There must be five players numbered 50-79 on the line of scrimmage at the snap. No "recommendation" there...it's a requirement.
2. Where a team chooses to put those linemen is what's recommended.
3. There is one exception to the requirement in #1, i.e. a 'scrimmage kick formation' where Team A can substitute eligible numbers for the five guys numbered 50-79.

But remember one other NCAA requirement about scrimmage kick formations: That is, in order to use the numbering exception that allows eligible numbers to 'replace' the 50-79 linemen, it must "...be obvious that a kick may be attempted." That pretty much rules out the A-11 on 1st, 2nd, or 3rd downs.

The A-11 is perfectly legal on 4th down and has been for some time. But that's about it.

[jtex]

That is not correct.

Go and look at the NCAA rules I posted.

1.4.1
1.4.2
7.1.3.a.4.c

You will see 1.4.1 states very clearly SRONGLY RECOMMEND. There is no way you can dispute that. I cannot change the wording.

ARTICLE 1. It is strongly recommended that offensive players be numbered
according to the following diagram that shows one of many offensive
formations (Rule 1-4-2-b):

Go look at the 2007 rules posted on the NCAA website to see diagram

No, you can punt any any down. Nothing says you must punt on 4th down only. All it says might punt. this does not mean you will punt.

What about kicking field goals on third down instead of 4th? Should field goals only be allowed on 4th down too?