A-11 Offense ??
 

Is this legal under FED rules? No numbering requirements ?

http://a11offense.blogspot.com/2007/...1-offense.html

Under FED Rules there exists a numbering exception for scrimmage kick formations. Under that exception there is no requirement to have 5 linemen numbers (50-79) on the line of scrimmage. Any player who is positioned on the line of scrimmage under this numbering exception remains ineligible throughout the down.


20....30.......40..88..25.......35....45
...80..............................85
................10....15


Under FED Rules, once a team sets in this formation Nos. 30, 40, 88, 25 and 35 are and will remain ineligible because they're in the game under the numbering exception. No amount of shifts or other movements will make them eligible receivers. (At least one of the players, No 10 or 15, must be 7 yards deep to make this a legal scrimmage kick formation)

What are the requirements to have in order to call a formation a "scrimmage kick formation" ?

REPLY: Mike...same as NCAA with one exception: It is not required that "it be obvious that a kick might be made." Hence, if the QB lines up 8 yards deep in the gun on 1st and ten, it's still a SKF in Fed rules.

Looks like the NCAA added that phrase in 1996. I suspect it was due to issues over roughing/running into the kicker and not over numbering exception.

Don't know how they figure by NFHS rules that this could possibly be legal, that is, all 11 players being eligible.

In order to have eligibility you must be eligible by number AND position. Scrimmage kick formation relieves the numbering requirement of 5 between 50 and 79 but does not relieve the requirement that an eligible must be on the end of the line. The maximum number of eligible receivers is six scrimmage or non-scrimmage formation.

In the aforementioned post 30, 40, 88, 25 and 35 are all ineligible by position. Of course, the defense would be fooled the first time they saw it but once they realize this spread it should not be a problem.

They acknowledge that all 11 aren't eligible every play. What the arrows indicate is they shift different players to different sets, thus making the defense change their coverage.

If it were so great, the NFL would be doing it. Nobody outworks or out-thinks those guys.

30, 40, 88, 25 and 35 are legal if they report in. I'm kidding, I'm kidding. Seriously though, how do they come up with all 11 being eligible? Can they play with, for example, 88 in the same position (between 40 & 25) but off the line? Would they then have to move 80 or 85 up to the line? The way I see this is they could have any combination of players on or off the line, as long as they had 5 on the line who were ineligible by position. Do I have that right? :confused:

My guess is with 11 eligible numbers the defense is faced with trying to decide which players will be ineligible.

They could take any player and place that player in an ineligible position. Then shift, and exchange that player to an eligible position with either a previously eligible or ineligible player. Example, they come to the line and the interior linemen go into a 2-point stance. Then 25 shifts to position where 45 is currently. 45 shifts to 85's position with 85 taking 25's initial position.

Imagine the defense trying to determine coverage. Even worst, the officiating crew trying to track eligible/ineligible, strong side/weak side.

As I said in my earlier post, the offense can not shift from this position to allow any of the covered players eligible. If a player is positioned as an interior lineman under the numbering exception he remains ineligible throughout the down regardless of how the team shifts.

The only possible way I can see this working is if the team originally lines up with everyone except the snapper lined up behind the line as a back and then stepping up to assume a position on the line.

I saw a team use this formation this year (actually saw the same team twice) but they didn't remove their linemen. During the pre-game conference with the coach we were told they throw a screen pass from this formation.

I think the idea behind it is that on play 1 using the formation above we have 20, 80, 10, 15, 85, 45 eligible, however, on play 2 using a different formation we could have 20, 80 40, 88, 25, and 45 eligible. It's probably a system that uses the 2 QB's, a center, and 8 WR's utilizing quick throws and misdirection to counter the absence of an O-line. The defense thus has difficulty countering with a standard defense of 4 DL 3 LB and 4 DB. Even with the right defensive personel on the field they still have to match up with the eligible receivers from play to play.

This is the most important thing to remember when the team is shifting to make 7 on the line and determine who is ineligible. Once 20 and 45 are on the end and set, all players on the line are ineligible by position.

Creativity has no ends. Based on another thread, someone will call this 'not football play' and illegal deception because it puts the defense at a disadvantage. BTW, they are not saying that all 11 players are eligible on every down, but based on different sets different players could be eligible on successive downs. So that on first down the 5 eligible receivers might not be eligible on the 2nd down. Coaches think outside the box, and officials must learn to think outside the box too. Otherwise, those officials who can think outside the box will get black-marked for knowing the rules and allowing a completely legal play because the officials who rely on 'the way it used to be' cannot accept it because it it is unusual.

Do they even have to set to be ineligible by position or do they just have to line up in scrimmage kick formation?

I believe from what's previously been in the news about this "A-11" formation the players (except the snapper) all initially line up off the line. That leaves the maximum of 10 players as possible eligible receivers. Before the snap some subset of 6 of them shift up to the line which then defines the 7 lineman, and the 2 ends. At that time the 5 interior lineman become ineligible by formation. It basically means that until the final formation is set, which could be as late as 1 count before the snap, the defense is kept guessing as to which players will be eligible. In fact, depending on how they line up, the center could be on the end of the line and be eligible.

Don't be so quick to poo-poo the "way it used to be". The rules are made and modified over the years for some specific purpose. SO even if you and your "rule expert" buddies think some "new" play is legal by the rules, it is very possible that someone who has been around for awhile and who says it is illegal, is saying so because he knows what the intent of the rule was when it came into being. It appears this foolishness might be legal under Fed rules but I assure you it is illegal under NCAA rules (except for one very specific time).

The A-11 Offense, from Kurt Bryan at Piedmont
 

Dear Football Officials:

I am the head football coach at Piedmont High School in northern, CA, and this past season we ran a new offense called (the A-11 Offense); which stands for All Eleven Players Potentially Eligible, see link below please:

http://a11offense.blogspot.com/2007/...1-offense.html

We are a small school regularly competing against larger schools and we had to try and somewhat negate sheer size from the defensive side of the ball vs. our offense. As you know, on any given play only 5 players can catch a downfield pass, and once a man is covered, he remains ineligible for that play, etc.

1. After much research and diligent study for more than a year, we submitted our ideas, X's and O's and interpretations for this new offense to the NFHS, and CIF and of course it was approved after they did their due diligence and also conversed with us on exactly what we were going to do. Not only should the those officials be applauded for their open minded approach to this new style of offense, but they should also be praised for not discriminating against us for being different and trying something new.

2. What is just a crucial, is that all of the actual Officials who worked our football games this past season were extremely complimentary of our new brand of offense, and they found it easy to handle. "Much easier in person than simply viewing it on a chalkboard," was the feedback we received weekly.

3. For college and pro teams that can recruit and/or draft the exact personnel they want to use, the A-11 is probably not a big deal to them (and we also know the rules are different at those levels). However, for a small public high school like ours, developing the A-11, using it this initial season and being successful is something our kids, coaches and now our entire community is truly proud of.

4. We have received 95% great and amazingly positive feedback: in person, phone calls and emails from coaches, fans, and Officials about how exciting the A-11 Offense is! What a treat for our program and the players are really proud of it. Now that we are openly sharing our system with fellow coaches, fans and officials nationwide, it is amazing and they can teach us too as we share together.

5. For the thousands of small schools like us around the country competing weekly against bigger faster stronger teams, this is a thrilling evolution of the game, and thank you again to the officials and open minded people for allowing innovation in football to begin at the high school level.

* If you need further info, please contact me direct:

Sincerely,

Kurt Bryan
Head Football Coach, Piedmont High School
C: 510-410-4717
E: [email protected]

Coach, you lost me at item 1 when you started talking about submitting ideas to the NFHS and CIF for their approval and when you started talking about 'open minded' officials who did not discriminate against you because you tried something new.

It's not my job to judge your offense, or even comment on it. I'm just there to administer the rules.

In item 1, I'm pretty sure the coach is talking about officials (representatives) of the NFHS and CIF - not "officials" who wear the stripes.

It's a creative offense - and perfectly legal. It could work even better if they sometimes started out in a normal shotgun rather than scrimmage kick formation. They could shift into scrimmage kick before the snap, bringing in the numbering exception. Would add to the difficulty of knowing who to cover.

Thanks for clearing that up, and please see quote
 

Dear Officials: Thanks to WiseRef for clearing up the meaning of "officials", yes solid representatives of NFHS and CIF, thanks.

It has been a whirlwind since the season began and even more busy since our season ended, and respectfully to all of the nice folks who have supported this new offense, we pulled this quote from a frequent visitor at a huge football coaches message board:

Regarding Basic Concepts of the A-11 Offense:

" Just my two cents on the board...and the A-11

In the immortal movie line from the great military philosopher gunnery sargeant Thomas Highway, "Improvise, Adapt, Overcome." Before we slam this as a fad, I would just like to enjoy for a moment the creative, non self-pity approach to competing. I meet coaches all over this country(literally) who tell me they can't throw the ball, or can't win for very similar reasons as Coach Bryan describes. The difference here is that while the injustice of the enrollment and competition is well-documented, they are not feeling sorry for themselves and going 0-9. They got together as a staff and said, you know what, we gotta compete!!! Every game we watch, we are all looking for that Boise State "balls out" creativity that inspires us to do what we do better - does that mean the A-11 is going to become the new Tony Franklin system, probably not, but the reason I come to this board and contribute is because guys like this staff have the moxie to share their creativity. The A-11 represents surprise and resolve to do what was necessary at this point in their program. That flexibility is impressive. Now, I don't believe any offensive scheme should be immortalized, or every put above it's role in serving the best interests of a program. I just love the unique step it represents. It is a beach head assault of another kind. It may be a dead system in a few years, but the willingness of a coaching staff to scheme effectively around his strengths is always fun - and kudos to Piedmont.

The reason Coach Huey started this board was because in other places you would share creative ideas, a few would criticize that creativity into oblivion. The war of ideas will always be appropriate, but, at least for now, you can still share something on this board and get a reasonable response.

I don't know, nor do I care, if this is "flag football", "tiddly winks", or "rugby on steroids", if this forum for sharing successes is lost to the pharisaical philosophies of everything should be done this or that way, the gift that this board is will be lost.

I am not defending the A-11, only what it represents, the power of creative men solving a real problem in their program. I won't run it, but it makes me take another look at everything I am doing to make sure I am doing all I can to be competitive, and putting my kids in a position to win. The Double Wing offense practically sent the forward pass into the stone age, whereas Tony Franklin's system has turned the RB into a 6th lineman, are those not extreme expressions of creative thinking about what we do best.

coach5085 is right on when he describes the "flag football" design, but it is nothing like that in preparation. He isn't saying that, only in his getting a context for what he is reading. The "loophole" comment was probably ill-advised - one man's loophole, is another man's creativity, but guys lets keep this board what it was designed to be, and don't draw so many negative conclusions about the intent of what people mean.

I don't get into stuff like this, and I certainly don't need a problem with anyone, but this board didn't get where it is by coaches staying passive when it's original intent is threatened.

No harm done either way, but let's keep it football as best we can.

I am sure the Defensive coaches on this board will have the A-11 diagrammed to destruction before the last turkey sandwich is consumed.

I love this board!! I love this country - Happy Thanksgiving and good luck Coach Bryan in the playoffs."

Question about Rule 7
 

Rule 7, section, Art 5b----Exception----When A sets or shifts into a scrimmage-kick formation any A player numbered 1-49 or 80-99 may take the position of any A player numbered 50-79. A player in the game under this exception must assume an INITIAL POSITION on his LOS between the ends and he remains an ineligible forward-pass receiver during the down unless the pass is touched by B---

Concerning this A-11 formation--and the rule above---what constitutes an INITIAL Position?

This exception rule, in my opinion, was designed to let the offense bring in players that were faster, ie, backs, receivers, linebackers, that could get down the field faster on punts than the ordinary O linemen--now this formation, set of plays, is doing nothing but taking the intent and spirit of the exception and twisting it to an unfair advantage.

What happens on a play when the QB has to run away from the unrushing defense, a broken play? With ineligible receivers scattered across the width of the field, how are we, as a crew, going to determine who was eligible at the start of the play with no numbering system?

I'm just a little concerned here about having a rule exception turned into a mockery.

moving forward with innovation
 

This is a good point and...

* In terms of the offensive "deception" question from another post, and why the A-11 already has and will continue to pass that test:

a. thousands of offensive football teams have been and will continue to purposefully Present a certain pair or group of WR's Near the L.O.S. to the Defense, and then Cover or Uncover them to confuse the defense and to give the Defense a Cloudy pre-snap look as to what WR's are or are not eligible on that play. Those teams successfully confuse the Defense and they will continue to do so. That has been going on for years and will continue regardless of the A-11.

b. The A-11 simply offers more "potentially eligible" WR's that the Defense can see, and that was carefully reviewed last off-season prior to approval. But as you know only 5 of those WR can go downfield on a forward passing attempt each play.

c. Both of these facts were discussed in detail and have been brought to my attention many, many times since.

d. To the other question about QB's busting loose on a broken play and having Ineligible WR's downfield on that play, etc. Ineligible WR/TE/RB players have been illegally downfield and will continue to be with traditional offenses long before the A-11 offense took the field, and that has been well-documented. Plus the Officials already look for that on Punt and FG/PAT plays too.

e. Lastly, anybody that has coached against or Officiated one of our A-11 games from the 2007 has called the A-11 many things (mostly very good), but "mockery" would not be one of them, respectfully.

Sincerely,

KB
www.A11Offense.com

Yes, BUT>>>>> that deception is limited to a maximum of 5 potential receivers. Your concept makes 10 potential receivers. This is patently unfair. As has been made clear here, the NFHS rulebook is lacking when it comes to dealing with your concept (but hopefully that will soon change). The NCAA rulebook is not so lacking and in there , even on situations where the numbering exception applies, there are very restrictive conditions placed on the offense to keep them from exploiting the "free for all" numbering.

Innovation in Football
 

Dear Officials:

As I am sure you guys are, I have no more desire to discuss the, "is it ok or not ok" aspects of the A-11 offense anymore.

However, prior the the 2007 season many people told us the A-11 was either going to be a complete bust or a great innovation for the game, making it more fun and exciting, etc.

Also interesting prior to the 2007 season, was some people thought we were going to get MAJOR complaints from opposing coaches and officials.

But that did not happen at all - in fact it was just the opposite...so that begs a legimate question and here it is:

"After being involved in a game(s) featuring the A-11 Offense, why did the overwhelming majority of opposing coaches and officials view it as a positive innovation and healthy for the game?"

That seems to be a very fair question regarding innovation in football, be it the A-11 or something new from another team in 2008...

Sincerely,

Kurt Bryan
www.A11Offense.com

At one time there were quite a few folks who thought it was "positive and healthy" to have "sporting events" featuring humans and lions fighting.

Kurt, if you really were just in this to make your team better 99% of us would have no idea who you or your offense were and it certainly wouldn't have a name or a website. It's quite obvious that your real goal is to turn a profit. The sad thing for your team is that by bringing all this attention you very well could cause the NFHS to close the loophole. If you had kept your mouth shut, most likely no one would have noticed your little school running your little offense. Since you are trying to exploit something that is clearly an exception to the rules, you are making the rules committee look bad and will no doubt force them to make a change, thereby eliminating your little business venture. Please stop hiding behind your "innovation" and stop bringing your info-mercial to this web site.

Tom

Excellent, Mike. You got a chuckle out of me. :D

Innovation
 

As coaches, we are always looking for ways to help our team win, but Way to change the subject to $$$ Tom,. I play every kid in every game on JV & V regardless of the score or outcome, always have and always will because the KIDS come first.

And: we are certainly not into coaching for the money...but we love the experience of learning, coaching and sharing innovative ideas with our peers and officials.

Let's look at reality shall we?...I coach for Free, donate my coaching stipend back into the football program and love to help my players become better people each day on and off the field.

So please keep the $$$ out of it --- we will be lucky to break even and recoup our cost for all of the FREE DVD's and tapes we have sent out...OK?

It's OK to have a website and when those companies offered to do a book and DVD series, we said yes...

And when A-11 Offense info started showing up on officiating web sites by Refs, I was asked to contribute and correct wrong info being spread by interested refs.

In terms of making the rules committee look bad, nothing could be further from the truth.

But again the question was about innovation in football...thank you.

As a reminder...

"After being involved in a game(s) featuring the A-11 Offense, why did the overwhelming majority of opposing coaches and officials view it as a positive innovation and healthy for the game?"

KB

Jeeze, I thought this subject had already received it's well deserved burial.
Yep, it's legal. Yep, I believe it soon won't be. Yep, I continue to doubt officials have gotten as giddy about it as the coach represents. When was the last time any of us got all enthusiastic about the crazy things teams try? And yep, I believe if the coach doesn't want people to think he's marketing this idea, then he should not be posting his web site advertising it with a variety of products for SALE!

Question about Rule 7 again---
 

Rule 7, section 2, Art 5b--states "...A player in the game under the exception MUST assume an INITIAL POSITION on his LOS between the ends and remain an ineligible forward-pass receiver during the down unless the pass is touched by B.

To me, an initial position would be after breaking the huddle, the players in under the exception, would immediately go take a position on the line of scrimmage---but according to the way this system works, after breaking the huddle, one player goes over the ball (the center, and the rest spread out and set behind the LOS and then shift into whatever play or formation they will use for the concerned play-----

To me, their initial position, was not on their LOS, but behind the LOS--thus, breaking the exception rule---

Comments, observations, agreements, disagreements???????!!!!!??

REPLY: I don't agree. If a player is not on the line between the ends, he's not operating under the exception. Nothing wrong with that. However, if he subsequently moves to a position on the line between the ends--now he's operating under the exception. I think the wording could use some tweaking, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with an eligible number somewhere in the backfield shifting to a position on the line between the ends and becoming an exception. It's only when he gets to this position that he is "a player in the game under the exception." Think about it...if the rule was intended as you suggest, the player could never be in the huddle.

Difficult to administer, sure. Patently unfair, absurd.

Over the years there have been times certain things about football have declared inviolate, saying not just that the rules are (at a given time) such-and-such, but that they must always remain so because to do otherwise would be unfair, against the spirit of the game, etc. And then they changed them.

During the time I've followed football, such has been the case with use of the hands & arms in blocking. At some point in the 19th Century, after interference had become an accepted part of the game, it was decided, well, that's OK, as long as they don't hold. And then in fairly short order it was decided that using the hands & arms to push was as bad as holding, and that's the way it stayed for generations. Statements were put into the rule book by Parke Davis and others saying not only that the rule was the rule, but that use of the hands might make for an interesting game, but not one to be called "football". In other words, the rule for that time on use of the hands & arms was taken to be a defining characteristic of football.

Anyway, for various considerations regarding safety, ease of administration, and desired balance between offense & defense (which of course is a matter of momentary taste), that all changed. From requiring the hands & arms to be kept close to the body and the palms facing away from the opponent, it's now been changed to legalize pushing. Still not holding or pulling, but pushing. What about all the old statements about that not being football any longer? Gee, I guess if we're playing football now, that must not have been football then!

And so on. The forward pass was "unfair" and "not football". Similarly free substitution. Similarly helmets. Similarly blocking. They even took the goals off the goal lines; the pros did so twice! (Yeah, yeah, juggler, we know.)

Where this A-11 is going, who knows. If I had to, I'd guess Fed will do away with it by bringing back the pullover numbers. But don't pretend there's something inherent about football that requires its removal.

Robert

I think it's pretty simple: that after the ball is RFP, any player who assumes a set position legally on the line is in an "initial" position on the line, and remains so until s/he shifts or becomes legally a back in motion or until the ball becomes live or no longer RFP. The player may or may not remain a lineman while or after moving to a position other than the "initial" one. When the ball is put in play the position each player came from may or may not have been hir "initial" one.

So let's say they don't huddle. When the ref whistles RFP, some of them are milling around, and some of them are set. We don't know who of A is legally on their line (meaning that none of them are) until the snapper assumes a position with the ball. They don't all have to be positioned at the same time, so any time one sets "on the line", they get a mental tag. One of the things to note is whether they're on either end of the line, regardless of whether there are 7 yet on the line. The snapper might be for a time the only player on the line, and the snapper is then on the end of the line. Which end? Both! Obviously you need to have at least 3 simultaneously on the line for any of them to be "between the ends".

Robert

Bob--I do not count the initial position to be the huddle----once breaking the huddle or coming in after the huddle, the rule states that anyone in under the exception must assume a position on his LOS between the ends---

This formation does not have any players from 50-79 in on the field and they are there for every play--so where is the exception?

I do not know if they use a huddle, but the fact remains they all line up, except a center, in the backfield off the LOS and then X-number of them move.shift onto the LOS between two ends.

To me, the exception rule was not created for this purpose and everyone here knows that, plain and simple----the exception rule was brought into play to give the punting team a chance to put in some faster, more agile players into the game to go down under a punt, not create an offense where there are only players wearing eligible numbers none of them are really there to assume a position under the exception.

You don't have to count the huddle, because the rule only takes effect for a player once that player assumes a position on the line. That's "an initial position on his line". The player could hop all over the place before that, setting here & there, but only if and when that player sets on the line does he get that mental tag.

Robert

The exception rule states that when a player comes in the game as a replacement for a teammate who wears 50-79, under the rule, he then becomes a replacement for that player and his position and therefore, he is an interior linesman and cannot be hopping all over the field waiting to decide where he will light---as this A-11 offense does.

They have 11 players with eligible numbers in on every play----where is the exception? And which player is in for which player?

Naw--the offense is in my humble opinion, illegal--------

Sorry GW68 but your interpretation is wrong. Never heard of anyone with such an interp.

A truly outstanding post!! http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra.../notworthy.gif http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...mages/clap.gif http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra.../notworthy.gif http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...mages/clap.gifhttp://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra.../notworthy.gif http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...mages/clap.gifhttp://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra.../notworthy.gif http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...mages/clap.gifhttp://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra.../notworthy.gif http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...mages/clap.gif

My interpt??????

Rule 7, Section 2, Art 5b.....Exception: When A sets or shiefts into a scrimmage-kick formation any A player numbered 1-49 or 80-99 MAY TAKE THE POSITION of any A player numbered 50 to 79. A player IN THE GAME under this EXCEPTION----MUST assume an initial position on his line of scrimmage between the ends and he REMAINS an ineligible forward-pass receiver during that down unless the pass is touched by B.

So, in my opinion, if 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 come in for 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, they then have to be on the line between the ends----but according to this formation, those five players join the other six, say numbered, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 as the offensive team for that play and the next play, and the next, etc, and each play, a different set of numbers go on the line and others remain the eligible players---thus, who are the players in as the exception players?

How many plays can you do back to back under the exception before it is no longer an exception, but the rule?

You'd better read that rule again, particularly the part that says "ANY A player numbered" and "MAY take the position."

When 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 come into the game, they are NOT REQUIRED to take the positions of 50, 51, 52, 53, and 53. They MAY take those positions or any of the 11 players in the game at that point MAY take those positions.

Further, the POSITION only applies to their final position on the LOS.

Sorry partner. Your interp of the rule doesn't hold water.

NO---The rule is stating that the coach MAY replace any player numbered 50-79 with any player numbered 1-49 or 80-99 and if the coach does do this in a SKF, he is using the Exception part of Rule 7, Section 2, Art 5--the rule then states that a player in under that exception, let me quote the rule here---"A player in the game under this exception MUST assume an initial position on his LOS between the ends...."

There are normally 5 players in the game wearing 50-79, the interior line, all inelgible receivers---this offense, takes those five guys out of the game, replaces them with five guys wearing 1-49 or 80-99, all eligible, thus making 11 eligible receivers in the game---Now, as the rule states, those in the game under the exception, you know, those that replaced those five offensive linemen, are supposed to assume a position on their LOS between the ends---now, on one play, they might, but on another only a couple do and a couple more of the other eligibles assumne those positions, and on the next, another group of them do---now, no one has left the field during this series and on each play, a different set of guys became lineman--The original rule, the exception was designed for the coach to replace a few interior linemen with more agile type players on a scrimmage kick situation to go down under the punt----

This is not happening here in this offense--the exception is no longer the exception and has become the rule due to bending of the rule and officials not following the spirit nor intent of the rule. In other words, there is no longer a replacement of players wearing 50-79 by players wearing 1-49 or 80-99 because no one ever came into the game wearing 50-79 to be replaced by a player wearing 1-49 or 80-99 and they are not punting on those plays---

Again, you can say I am messed up here, but you know and I know, this is a giant bending of the rule and becoming a gross miscarriage of fair play/sportsmanship.

Let me ask you something. 6 eligible numbers and 5 ineligible numbers are on the field. After the down is over, all 5 ineligible players leave the field ALONG with 3 of the eligible numbers. 8 eligible numbers now enter the field. All 11 leave the field and 11 eligible numbers enter the field. How do you know who replaced who? YOU DON'T.

"...ANY A player numbered 1-49 or 80-99 MAY take the position of any A player numbered 50 to 79."

That's crystal clear. ANY A player MAY take those 5 positions. It does NOT have to be the 5 players who just came into the game.

You're wrong. That's why no one else is agreeing with you.

I really could care less whether anyone agrees with me or not--the fact remains--read the ruleWhch states--"A player in the game under the exception must assume an initial position on his line of scrimmage..."

Now you are telling me we could have 11 players in the game under the exception????? There are only five players that fit the original intent of the exception rule--those that normally wear numbers between 50 and 79-According to you, the coach could send in eleven players in under the exception and any of those eleven can become the five on any play without ever leaving the field---Thus no player wearing the number 50-79 to be replaced by a player wearing a number 1-49 or 80-99. Now, tell me again where I am mistaken?

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?

That is the crux of the argument on the A-11 isn't it? That Team A can "cutesy" it's way around the numbering requirement by being in the NFHS loosely defined " scrimmage kick formation" ?

Rule 7 section 2, Art 5b reads----"At the snap at least five players on the line of scrimmage MUST be numbered 50-79..."

Exception: When A sets or shifts into a SCRIMMAGE KICK FORMATION any A player numbered 1-49 or 80-99 may take the position of any A player numbered 50 to 79 (meaning five players can be sent in to meet this exception)

This offense is allowing the coach to start the game or any set of downs with 11 players on the field wearing numbers 1-49 or 80-99 without ever having five players on the field numbering 50-79 and operating in the SKR the entire game and never using the exception because he never had any players meeting the requirements of wearing the numbers 50-79---Thus in my opinion, breaking the rule from the start.

How does NFHS define "shift"? I know it is mixing apples and oranges, but under NCAA rules, "shift" would include 2 or more players running in from the sideline after the RFP whistle. If NFHS uses same definition couldnt they just hold the team at the sideline and wait for the RFP before running in and taking a position? Bottom line is that there appears to be enough "looseness" in the current NFHS rules to let them "get away" with this offense. Use your energy to get the NFHS to eliminate any uncertainity and make this entire spectacle a footnote in history.

If they're players rather than substitutes, what are they doing running in from the sideline? To shift, they have to be players, and their shift can't start until they've been stationary. No way to satisfy both requirements by your scenario. It is possible for them to have legally left the field during the preceding down and remain players, but they still couldn't "shift" from there.

They don't. In Fed you can have a 1 player shift. But that's irrelevant to your example.

Robert

Inside the Numbers
 

By the rules the widest the offense can spread before the RFP is 35 yards -- that would place them inside the numbers. After the RFP they can shift outside the numbers.

Really then why did you post "Comments, observations, agreements, disagreements???????!!!!!??"

There's no requirement the 50-79 players ever step on the field.

Like it or not, the system is presently legal.

But don't be concerned. It's not going to last. It will be addressed.

Surely a team could have all 11 out near the sideline until after the RFP and then run everyone inside the numbers and still be legal? (And once inside the numbers 1 or more could go back outside them)

Actually, I think goldenwings68 is on to something here based on the portion of the rule that states, "A player in the game under this exception MUST assume an initial position on his LOS between the ends....". This seems to "lock in" 5 players in the game under the exception who have replaced the 5 players numbered 50-79 that are required by rule. Therefore, these 5 players should report to an official (probably the U).

BKTBALL--

As stated, yes, I asked for comments, concerns, disagreements, etc, but you were telling me why no one agreed with me and I was just telling you that in reality, my posting here isn't gauged by pe3ople liking me or agreeing with me--sorry, but it isn't my nature to try and get people to like me---

I was a Marine for 30 years and I have been a football official for 22 years and believe me, people liking or disliking me doesn't mean agreat deal.

I am here voicing my dislike for what this offense represents which is a complete disregard for the spirit and intent of the exception rule for SKF and I still believe the way it is being done is illegal in the fact that there are no 50-79 numbered players on the field to be replaced under the exception rule.

Both of you guys are making up your own rules and interpretations.
 

There is absolutely, positively no such requirement.

No one has said anything about disliking you. Get the chip off your shoulder, Marine. You're simply aren't interpreting the rule correctly, as evidenced by the fact that posters in 2 other forums as well as this one do not accept that interp. I've given you the reasons why and you haven't offered a thing to disapprove them. :(

I'm done

That is correct, Mike.

You're missing a couple of points. First, there is no requirement for any player to report his position to anyone. Eligibility is determined by two factors - number and position. No amount of reporting will change either of those facts.

Second, The players in the game under the numbering exception for scrimmage kick formations is not determined when they enter the field. Rather, it's determined when and where they line up.

Following a third down play A players numbered 51 thru 55 leave the field and are replaced by A players 31 thru 35. On forth down A10 assumes a position as a snapper with the team in scrimmage kick formation. Using GW's logic this would be illegal because A10 didn't come in the game to replace any of the players numbered A51-A55. This is simply not true.

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?

You are not missing the intent. You are exactly right. And most officials agree with you on the intent, although clearly there are a few in the minority. The coach who started this may or may not agree that it is the intent of the rule but has chosen to exploit the NFHS wording and operate counter to the intent.

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.

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---

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

REPLY: Based upon past history, you're exactly right. But I would hope that they'd also change the rules to align with any such case play.

update
 

Dear Officials:

This should help you all:

1. There are NO problems in California with Officials managing a game involving the A-11 offense - a Fact is Fact.

And so, respectfully to the guy who said there was a huge problem in CA - that is completely wrong and the opposite of what took place in 2007. Again, 11 different officiating crews in three different regions of NorCal worked our games - that is easy to verify so please deal in the facts.

2. The A-11 was already reviewed under many criteria and one of them was: did it make a travesty of the game? - the answer was no, not at all.

3. Case Rule Book Interpretation: The offense is legal, has an entire season under its belt already with actual living breathing officials working the games - with NO problems - so those interpretations have already been documented, and the offense is legal because of the rules (BktBallRef is correct).

Do we substitute players numbered #50 - 79 and #1-49 or 80 -99 throughout the game? Yes, of course.

4. Humbly, there are a lot of coaches who like what this offense brings to the game (but not everybody likes it - as is the case with any offense), and many coaches believe the future of the game is headed this way, etc.

Thank you.

KB

REPLY: Might as well respond here too. Thanks for the update. I agree that the offense is legal...for now, but I must take some exception to the way you represent its review and disposition.

You mentioned that this has been covered with a Case Book interpretation. I'm sorry, but there is nothing in the case book to cover the A11. And you mention that "...those interpretations have already been documented." I've searched the National Federation web site where they document any case book additions/revisions. The last entry was for the beginning of the 2007 season. There is no play referencing the A11 or even any mention of it. Just where is this documented so that everyone can see it? Certainly doesn't seem to be documented by the Fed. Unless documented by them on their website, everything else is just opinion.

I would submit there are plenty of problems managing this type of game. I think it would be better to say the officials found nothing illegal per the rules about it.

Not much to add here, since I agree as far as rule interpretation is involved. I still believe we will see a rule revision to the exception however, so the desire to use the travesty rule will not be necessary.

This makes me wonder if you have the correct idea of what the case book is and it's interpretations. The case book is produced by the NFHS and consists of specific play examples and what the correct rulings would be. It is often used to clarify rules that might be confusing. The officials that worked your games did not provide case book documentation by what they ruled.

Ruleswise, what coaches think some "innovation" brings to the game or what may be the "future" of the game is of no relevance.

addendum
 

** Thanks and Yes, I meant it has set a precedent by being utilized for 11 games in the 2007 season, and it should be assumed that it WILL be listed in the upcoming NFHS case book as being legal, thanks for clarifying that for us.

REPLY: But since the A11 was not discussed in full committee at last weekend's Rules Committee Meeting in Indianapolis (and that is a fact), there will be no mention of the A11 (for or against) in the 2008 rule or case books...that is unless the Federation sets a new precedent.

sounds good
 

Thanks Bob, and I was told that too, I appreciate the clarification.

KB:)

However, it could still be addressed in the annual interpretations. I have no idea if it will or not.

It matters not to me. My state will be penalizing it under 9-9-4 as an unfair act. I'm gald I don't have to fool with the nonsense.

No, or at least I'm not.

Yes. The definition is clear.

It's not the first time a rule change was intended to accomplish one thing but had unintended side effects. I'm sure when the relevant timing rules were established, it was not their intention to have players deliberately stop the clock by running out of bounds or throwing low percentage passes.

Robert

I don't think so. Read it and tell me when it's not obvious a kick (any type of kick -- could be a drop kick) may be forthcoming?

If they want to do something like that, they'll have to limit it to 4th down and tries, rather than a judgement of when a kick may (rather than "will") occur. And if a team wants to kick on another down, they just won't have the exception to take advantage of.

Or they can go back to the pullover jerseys.

Or they can scrap the numbering requirement and go back to the way it was for decades. Or have the ends raise a hand to declare themselves eligible, as is done one version of 8-a-side touch football where there's only one end eligible to receive forward passes.

Or just scrap the exception and not even allow pullover jerseys.

Or report eligible as in the NFL and some minor leagues.

Robert

And yet it was that way for decades after the forward pass was legalized, with fewer officials on the field than now.

Consider rugby, where there's just the referee keeping track of who's onside following a kick. And unlike Canadian football since 1970, in rugby offside players can still be put onside by the kicker or (in RU) a teammate who was onside at the time the ball was kicked.

Just because you've had it relatively easy since before you started officiating doesn't mean it'll always be that easy. You may have to study some old mechanics on how they kept track of eligible receivers without their having to wear "eligible" numbers.

Robert

reply
 

In response to BktBallRef's reply of..."It matters not to me. My state will be penalizing it under 9-9-4 as an unfair act. I'm gald I don't have to fool with the nonsense."

....That Article 9-9-4 you are referencing was already reviewed and the offense was approved, and it was made clear during the approval process this offense does not make a travesty of the game and it is not an unfair act.

KB

So you're solution is to just get ready to officiate in a manner of yore that was changed because of situations that resembled this same problem and was recognized as unfair and/or difficult? I don't get the logic there at all.

If a state association chooses to penalize it under 9-9-4, there's not a damn thing that you or anyone else can do about it.

Exactly. As Bob mentioned the NFHS has not mentioned this formation (and that's all it really is) either for or against. Just because the CA state interpreter has said it is ok, that won't necessarily hold true in other states. Let's not forget that this is one small school in one state running this formation. When it's put in perspective, it's understandable why there is no reason for the NFHS to bother addressing it. Maybe if sales pick up (let's not forget this is about $ for KB) then the NFHS will see fit to address it.

Tom

Kurt,

I've got to chime in. I think your promoting your new innovation is commendable. It's good to see people trying to innovate the game.

With that said I think that sometimes you are overly defensive. Many of us have played and coached as well as officiated and have a deep love for the game. We have a vested interest in helping to preserve the integrity of the game we officiate. New innovations are great but ultimately they must pass the muster of not only the NFHS officials but also the game officials that have to apply the rules on the field. My state representative spends a lot of time receiving feedback from officials before he goes to his NFHS meetings.

I agree that at this point your offense is legal under current NFHS rules. However, while your advocacy is commendable I think you have to be thick skinned about any critical feedback you receive. Officials have just as much invested in the game as you and many of them will not like your offense. This dislike will not be personal but it will be frank and might sting a bit. I am undecided on whether your offense is good for the game of football. I think your innovation is taking advantage of an exception. However, the manner in which you take advantage in no way resembles the reason for the exception.

I would expect within the next year or two the NFHS will have to take steps to legitimize your new offense or close the loophole that allows it. I'm curious how you will react if the decision goes against your offense. I will predict that in two years the loophole will be closed and the A11 will be a footnote in football history. There are simply too many purists in the coaching, officiating, and rule deciding ranks and these purists hold most of the power.

I understand that your team may be overmatched in some cases. However this is more of a issue for those that govern the divisions in your area. I think that a better way to handle the issue is to place your school in a division with others schools of similar size. I'd hate to see football in general possibly screwed up because a smaller school found a loophole that allowed it to compete with much larger schools. If allowed to continue the larger schools will just adopt the offense and then beat you at your own game because they can draw from a much larger pool of talent. If a sizable percentage of schools adopt your offense then all of a sudden football as we know it doesn't exist anymore. This will NOT sit well with a great many people involved in the game. I for one do not want to see football change much from where it is.

I don't think there will be any changes in the game of football because of this formation. Regardless of what number the players wear, you still need the skilled players to be able to run the spread offense. This formation will rely on those players also being pass blockers. I can't speak for CA, but in MD this formation wouldn't survive the preseason without legitimate pass and run blocking. I will also add that officiating with this formation is no big deal either. We deal with it all the time in youth football where they don't use the numbering system at all. The only issue is that quite often you will miss an ineligible downfield. I'm sure this has already happened with KB's team, He keeps saying that he was not penalized all year for ineligible downfield. I can only say no ****. That doesn't mean it didn't happen and that is a problem at the varsity level. I would love to see a complete and good quality game film of one of those games, not the parent tapes he keeps posting where you really can't see what is going on.

fair enough...
 

Thanks for the well thought out replies.

I have and do respect everybody who states an opinion and not a personal attack, whether it be like-minded or not compared to mine. Always have and always will.

1. Please be kind enough to drop the "we all know this is about money" lie...either you choose to be of a damaging personality type by spreading lies or you cannot read, either way it is bad news for you. So please drop it...

2. Never did I say we did Not have any illegal WR downfield all season long, but rarely, because each player has a role on each play. And, we teach our ineligibles on each play to block or decoy away from the l.o.s.

3. Yes, I know there are many officials who have played the game and love the game - same goes for us coaches, and the players we work with

4. Thick skin: yes, I understand and my skin is thick and scarred, but then again, most anybody who has coached for 22 years can say that

5. Future of the game and football purists: If we could ask coaches & officials from 25 - 50 years ago or 100 years ago if today's brand of football is pure, I wonder what the answer would be? The game of football evolves at a rapid rate or becomes tiresome...and none of us wants that.

6. Football will hopefully ever evolve and it most certainly will not look the same 10 or 20 years from now - it will either adapt or die, and we know football will not become extinct.

7. On our offense and becoming a note in football history - the game is moving in the direction of the A-11 offense - more spread out - that is why so many people (but not all) who coached against or officiated our games LIVE enjoyed watching it. It is something new. The spread will only become more spread out - not less, etc. But that does not mean that everybody has to Use it or Like it.

8. Is the A-11 here to stay? Nothing will be better for the game than to see it blossom over the next couple of years and then have a national debate within our coaching/officiating fraternity: either for it or against it.

9. Like the officials said who actually worked our games - it is much easier to officiate in person than on a chalkboard.

10. For 21 years I was an under the center - never use the shotgun - type of coach. I saw where the game was going and decided to Join it rather than get swallowed up by it.

11. About realignment of leagues to suit our enrollment. That is done by the sections in the CIF: We have no control over it and that is why the CIF is being sued by another school here in the bay area for unfair something or another....

12. Lastly in the future, maybe football historians will look back at this time period 2000 - 2015 as a key era in revolutionizing the game into a more dynamic high speed sport that maximizes athletic potential while still incorporating blocking and tackling? Will the A-11 be a cog in the wheel of the spread attack style offenses? Yes of course, but will that hurt the game or cause it to morph into something that is Not typical old fashioned football? To be blunt, that has already happened before the A-11 hit the field, so all of us must either adapt or perish because we cannot change.

I for one understand the credo Bill Walsh told me - "To be successful, you need to be flexible."


Thanks for the candor...

KB

Numbers 1 and 2 are obviously directed at my post.


1. What lies? You have a web site devoted to your formation (which is solely based on a rule exception). You are selling items on that web site so that others may also learn how to use this formation. It's interesting that whenever I bring it up and you reply, you leave the website off of your reply. If it were altruistic there would be no fee for the information, therefore it is about money. If I am wrong then please show me where coaches in my area can get this information for free. Several teams in our area run this offense, minus your formation exception and might be interested.

2. In several of you early posts you bragged that you were never called for an ineligible receiver downfield all year. I merely contend that is exactly what the problem officials are concerned about with this formation. You now agree with me that you possibly did have ineligible players downfield and it wasn't called. That is the only issue with your exception formation. It's difficult to spot the ineligibles. During the course of a normal play it is easy to lose track of ineligble players, it could be a run fake or a broken play. Possibly a double reverse that turned into a pass at the last moment and there may have been more than one penalty flag already tossed. Now the umpire spots A52 7 yards downfield as he turns once the ball is throw. He knows he has a penalty. Same situation except A22 was in the game instead of A52. When the umpire sees A22 downfield, unless he duly noted his eligibility status at the snap and could recall it without the shadow of a doubt after all that just transpired, chances are he will not throw the flag because he has some doubt. That is the problem with this formation. You can deal with it when it is a punt situation. A clean snap and a kick, no problem. Muffed or bad snap, or a fake situation (close game, close yardage) you watch for ineligibles because you know you will most likely have them. Your formation requires too much needless attention by the officials to constantly determine who is or isn't eligible.
I know that your next reply is that several crews from several groups had no problem with your formation and they all endorse it yada, yada, yada. That is all coming from you. Why don't you let us hear it from them? I would love to speak to the commissioner of your officiating group. Give him this forum and have him come on or invite him to email me directly at [email protected]

pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaze
 

Thanks Tom, here is the web site again, we have traded lots of info for free, it you don't believe it, nothing I can do. However, if and when companies contact you direct because they want to spread the word about your great idea - whatever it is - I will root for you to succeed.

1. Never, ever said we did not get called for ineligible wr's downfield it just did not happen very often because of the roles each player must do on each play - go back and read my earlier posts more closely.

2. By now most guys on this and other boards know our web site

3. Many officials have emailed or contacted me direct and all of my contact info is posted on here and on our site - so pick up the phone if you need my help on something and I will gladly talk to you, etc.

4. It is easy to contact the key officials in our area - just look it up.

Sincerely,

KB
www.A11Offense.com
510-410-4717

1. Ok, I stand corrected you didn't say never. Here is what you said:
We change the snap count often and do get illegal procedure calls, and normal amount of holding calls, but very, very rare for illegal man downfield at all.


2. Ok, so why did you add it again? :rolleyes: (that was a rhetorical question)

3. I don't need your help with anything. I just wanted to know if you were willing to share your information with other coaches for free.

4. This isn't what keeps me up at night. I don't want to search to find out what group officiates your games and who their commisioner is. Most coaches have that information readily available. Instead of testimonials, I just thought it would be interesting to hear from the game officials directly. I'm not surprised that you don't want that to happen.

okie dokie
 

Tom:

Thanks for recanting your words, shows class.

* Many of the officials who worked our games made their opinions clear to me and several to their superiors, and a lot of the top guys to their top guy...so that has been relayed to yours truly directly and indirectly.

I also know that at few of them have already been interviewed for articles forthcoming - and that should be most informative for all to read.

Take care,

KB

"Recognized as unfair and/or difficult"? Was the game unfair or difficult all those years before the forward pass was legalized? Was it unfair or difficult when a ballcarrier whose knee touched the ground wasn't automatically down? Was it unfair or difficult when a live ball could always be kicked? Was it unfair or difficult when coaching from the sidelines was forbidden? No, just different.

Robert

Why was the double pass taken out of HS football? Not because it was unfair. Because it was difficult to officiate fairly.
:cool:

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."

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.

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

On that point we certainly agree!

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
 

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...

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

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.

And that, in my view, is the bottom line. Either the numbering requirements will be thrown out (ignoring the entire reasoning for the number requirements in the first place) because using the exception to the rule in this manner makes that rule obsolete. Or some rule revision will be made to the exception so that the loophole will be closed.
Personally, I bet on the revision happening. It may not be this year, it may not even be next year, but if this becomes a "problem" in the view of the rules people, it will happen.

billy mays?
 

* Tom, who is Billy Mays?

Since the A-11 made its debut, we have received many excellent ideas from coaches about where the game of football is headed. Here is some food for thought and feel free to post your ideas about the future of football and what it will become over the next 10 - 20 years:

* The game is becoming much faster at an exponential rate and has nationally morphed into a highly skilled spread run/pass scheme in less than a decade throughout much of the country.


A. Since the actual playing field dimensions in football have Not changed in over 100 years, but the players are faster, bigger and much stronger than their predecessors of over a Century ago, naturally the game has evolved in order to adapt. First it was the implementation of the forward pass (in part to reduce injury when the President of the United States stepped into the fray), then it was in reducing the width between the hashmarks. In other words, the game is always evolving...

Lately offensive teams have attempted to negate sheer brute strength from the game by utilizing the Spread offense and attempting to place each individual Defender on an "island" by himself in order to gain an advantage and create massive running lanes and clearer passing lanes.

B. Several coaches have suggested the game is evolving so fast and with the speed and athleticism of the athletes, and the efficient QB's able to complete 60% or more of their passes regularly, the game is moving toward maximizing the eligible WR's.

How might that happen?

1. The jersey numbering requirments could eventually go away altogether? Maybe, but very unlikely...

2. The current offensive numbering requirments mandating that at least 5 players wearing jersey # (50 - 79) must be on the field - except when in a Scrimmage Kick Formation (SKF) might be reduced.......It could very well be in the near future that those numbering requirments get reduced to Only having to have at least 3 players numbered # (50 - 79) on the field except when in a (SKF). So, a team would then normally have a (LG/C/RG), with everybody else potentially eligible and only 5 of those players could legally be downfield on a forward passing play, etc.

3. If item # 2 is eventually adopted, then it is not to far of a leap to presume that then 6 WR's eligible on a forward passing play would not be too far off either.

4. Other ideas would be to expand the End Zone to a depth of 15 yards.

5. Allowing two players to go in Motion at the same time

6. Allow only one player to still go in Motion but allow that to be towards the L.O.S. as well

** The game has always evolved to fit the needs of the current players and society and it always will evolve - the question is how?

Thanks and hope you enjoyed this food for thought...

KB