A-11 Offense ??

[JPC75]

right.....Doug Flutie....opps....what a great player....

I am actually a Rubgy ref. Reffing a Rugby match is pretty difficult but the ref does have the last word and everyone on the field respects that or they get sent off.

I would love to ref a Canadian football game, but we don't get much coverage here in the States. I have seen some games though and the wider field and 3 downs make the game intresting. I like the 1 point for punting out of the endzone too.

Anyway, I do love football, but hate the over officiated, heavly structured NFL game.

[JugglingReferee]

I've heard some people come up with their own version for what NFL is an acronym. LOL

I too think that the NFL is heavily structured, and tremendously enjoy the CFL game. I still watch the NFL, though. But only after CFL games.

[Texas Aggie]

I truely believe if it was left up to the refs, they would amend the rules

Coaches, not officials, are the ones that make up the rules committee. Whatever changes that have been made have been the result of what coaches want.

[JPC75]

Quote: Coaches, not officials, are the ones that make up the rules committee. Whatever changes that have been made have been the result of what coaches want.

Texas Aggie: I didn't say who created the rules, but my point is that if it was left up to the refs, they would surely vote to have more refs on the field which would allow for more ref control, more penalties and more stoppages.

Jimmy

[JPC75]

Quote: Hey, Rubgy Ref...Rugby player here. Trust me, you're missing 90% of the game.

Rugby Player: What 90% of the game, which I probably didn't mention, am I missing? Are you referring to my mentioning of Rugby's 12 Laws of the Game?

Let me clarify something; I am not proposing that Rugby is better than Football; all I am saying is that if one can not agree that there is way too much officiating and dissecting of the numerous rules of the game of football, you must be blind. Some of the rules in football are absolutely ridiculous.

One recent rule change I hate is that a kicking team on a kick off can not advance a free ball that they recover. The kick off was always a free kick, meaning that once the ball went 10 yards it was any teams ball to advance. These types of rule changes ruin the game. There are a million others....

The game of football is becoming a shadow of its former self.....

Jimmy

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JPC75

Quote: Hey, Rubgy Ref...Rugby player here. Trust me, you're missing 90% of the game.

Rugby Player: What 90% of the game, which I probably didn't mention, am I missing? Are you referring to my mentioning of Rugby's 12 Laws of the Game?

Let me clarify something; I am not proposing that Rugby is better than Football; all I am saying is that if one can not agree that there is way too much officiating and dissecting of the numerous rules of the game of football, you must be blind. Some of the rules in football are absolutely ridiculous.

One recent rule change I hate is that a kicking team on a kick off can not advance a free ball that they recover. The kick off was always a free kick, meaning that once the ball went 10 yards it was any teams ball to advance. These types of rule changes ruin the game. There are a million others....

The game of football is becoming a shadow of its former self.....

Jimmy

That's not a recent rule change. The kicking team has never been allowed to advance a kick that wasn't possessed and then fumbled by the receivers.

[JPC75]

Quote: That's not a recent rule change. The kicking team has never been allowed to advance a kick that wasn't possessed and then fumbled by the receivers.

What if the ball is never touched by the recievers?

See now you have me doing it, what if the ball comes in contact with a blade of grass, should it be time for you to blow the whistle or call a penalty, throw a flag; maybe illegal use of the brain or hands or feet or fingers or toes...maybe illegal touching of the ball during the game penalty...?

ridiculous....!

[wwcfoa43]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

That's not a recent rule change. The kicking team has never been allowed to advance a kick that wasn't possessed and then fumbled by the receivers.

In Canada, we still allow the kicking team to advance the ball that they recover. It seems kind of strange that in the U.S. this is not allowed. I think the kicking team running downfield is exciting.

Wonder why they changed it (back in the early dawn when football separated from Rugby). Did the U.S. rulemakers feel there would be too much excitement on recovered onside kicks?

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by JPC75

What 90% of the game, which I probably didn't mention, am I missing?

No, I'm referring to their own brand of justice applied on the pitch by two teammates against an opponent because you never saw the original infraction. You're not Santa Claus. Players know you can't see everything.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JPC75

One recent rule change I hate is that a kicking team on a kick off can not advance a free ball that they recover.

"Recent"? Unless you're talking Canadian, that value of "recent" makes for the really looooong view of American football! In another thread I'm criticizing Mr. Redding for a quote that essentially equates his lifetime (or less) with the entire history of football, but looks like the opposite problem here. (Please don't tell me they made that change recently in Football Canada or CFL.)

Seriously, the only codes I know of in 11-a-side that allow team K to advance their free kick are possibly the IWFL and possibly Big Apple Youth Football, and I suspect an editing error in the case of the IWFL and officials' errors in BAYF. Arena Football allows it. 11s banned it faaaar back in the 20th C, maybe even before NFL & Fed rules diverged from NCAA.

Originally Posted by RichMSN

That's not a recent rule change. The kicking team has never been allowed to advance a kick that wasn't possessed and then fumbled by the receivers.

Sorry, Rich, your "never" betrays the opposite problem from JPC75's use of "recent". The rule's old, but not original equipment.

Originally Posted by somebody_whose_handle_I_forgot

Wonder why they changed it (back in the early dawn when football separated from Rugby). Did the U.S. rulemakers feel there would be too much excitement on recovered onside kicks?

Combination of 2 factors:

1. safety
2. desire to separate attacking from defending functions

Factor #1 says the safest ball is a dead ball. Fed went the farthest in this regard, killing the ball for more reasons than any other code. However, I see that Fed has reversed that tendency somewhat in the last decade or two.

Factor #2 is purely a matter of taste. Going back to 1880 there's been a desire in American football to make the offense beat a prepared defense, rather than allowing unexpected possession to provide spontaneous play. (Even Canadian football hasn't been devoid of that sentiment, as shown during a brief period when fewer points were awarded for an "unearned" try -- pouncing on a ball left by opponents behind their goal line -- than for an "earned" one -- advanced by the attacking team.) That operated in allowing team A an uncontested scrimmage to begin with, and was also a factor in the NCAA's keeping for so long their rule forbidding advance of an opponent's grounded fumble or muff (which, however, was originally adopted to encourage risky lateral passes).

Robert

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

"Recent"? Unless you're talking Canadian, that value of "recent" makes for the really looooong view of American football! In another thread I'm criticizing Mr. Redding for a quote that essentially equates his lifetime (or less) with the entire history of football, but looks like the opposite problem here. (Please don't tell me they made that change recently in Football Canada or CFL.)

They haven't: FC and the CFL still permit the kicking team to obtain and advance a legal kick-off. I can't imagine that ever changing - it is so engrained into our game.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JPC75

Quote: Coaches, not officials, are the ones that make up the rules committee. Whatever changes that have been made have been the result of what coaches want.

Texas Aggie: I didn't say who created the rules, but my point is that if it was left up to the refs, they would surely vote to have more refs on the field which would allow for more ref control, more penalties and more stoppages.

Jimmy

We want more officials so that the game is covered better. I work 3 sports, including football and basketball and the last thing I want is to interrupt the game unnecessarily. Still 7 officials can cover a field better than 4 and that increases the likelihood we will make the necessary calls correctly so the players can really be responsible for the outcome of the game.

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by JPC75

if it was left up to the refs, they would surely vote to have more refs on the field which would allow for more ref control, more penalties and more stoppages.

Jimmy

You know jack sh!t about football officials and officiating, obviously.

If it was left up to us, we'd vote to have no one pass or kick the ball and that's about it.

But (a) it ain't left up to us, ( b) it's never going to be left up to us and (c) the last two things on earth we want is for there to be more penalties and more stoppages.

Most of us aren't control freaks. We're not frustrated ex-jocks. I've been at this five years and have yet to meet a martinet. There's simply nothing in it that's worth everything you have to go through if your goal is just to screw up a great game for kids who are 17-18 years old.

Anyone who was really like that wouldn't last long in this avocation because most people would simply refuse to work with him or her.

Because that's not what we're about.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by JPC75

I am actually a Rubgy ref.

Hey, Rubgy Ref...Rugby player here. Trust me, you're missing 90% of the game.

[JPC75]

More rules = More refs = More control...

I can believe that most refs on this site are conscious and try not to over officiate and ruin the game, and that is probably why they are on this site. The problem, however, are the majority of football refs do not visit this site and do not care to be educated and love to throw "Hankies".

Ruins the game.

----

WaltJP

On the rugby note, I do realize that I miss 90% of the rugby game I officiate (although this seems a little over exaggerated) after you clarified that fouls that occur behind my back are missed.

You are also right that I am aware of behind my back justice. This is all part of the sport and it is a judgment call for the ref. I might notice a black eye or broken nose on one player complaining to me that he was roughed off the ball by another player and when his opposing number turns up with a black eye or broken nose, I am not usually left wondering where it came from. However, I will call it if I see it. This is part of the game.

And I was not being arrogant by saying that the rugby ref’s word is last. It is just known and respected within the sport.

Jimmy