a11 Offense - 11 potentially eligible receivers

[daggo66]

All they are doing is taking advantage of a loop hole in the numbering system. There are still the same number of eligible receivers on any given play. They are only making the officials' jobs more difficult and may occasionally succeed in having an ineligible downfield. We deal with this when working youth football all the time because the do away with the NFS numbering requirement in my area. Granted they don't pass as often. I don't see this as some great "revolution". Any team that can defense the spread can defense this.

Tom

[BktBallRef]

Tom, what's confusing is that you have the snapper over the ball with 10 eligible numbers behind the LOS. 6 step up to the LOS and set for 1 second. The defense has no idea who will be eligible /ineligible until 1 second before the snap. It's quite effective.

[dvasques]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I don't understand your question, so I'll simply explain the rule.

Unless you're NOT in a scrimmage kick formation, you must have 5 linemen, numbered 50-79 on the LOS at the snap.

That's part of what I was looking for. So you can't have less than 5 inelible numbered men on the line. And can only have more if you report change of elegibility.

Now, the other part of what I wanted to ask is. Can I have a Tight End report he's turning into an ineligible man and then have only 4 numbered from 50-79 plus the TE on the line as an offensive line? Or there is no such change of elegibility?

[Theisey]

NF and NCAA rules do not have anything in the books regarding "reporting" of eligibility status.
Get that out of your head unless you are worried about the NFL.

A player is eligible because of the position he has lined up as and by the number he is wearing. The defense and officials have to know who is and who isn't eligible on every snap. This A-11 formation complicates this.

All that can change when in so call "scrimmage kick formation" where you can have all eligible by "number" players taking the positions of what would normally have been an "ineligible" player by his position on the line.

Make sense?

[KurtBryan]

Dear Officials:

Please let me say how much I appreciate your candor regarding our new offensive system - the A-11 Offense.

Not only is your perspective appreciated but also enlightening, whether it be negatvie or positive.

* What is critical to remember during these discussions, is that we took the time (more than a year) to research, submit, discuss, explain and diligently review everything we had developed in writing with the NFHS and CIF. Not only were those powers-that-be great and very keen, but they also knew this might be a potentially groundbreaking new system.

Whether or not that is the case regarding the A-11 offense is not the point, respectfully, the due diligence has already been completed, the first season of use was fun and successful, and the players, fans, coaches and officials liked and/or had no problem with it - especially the Officials who worked our games, etc.

Game notes: we had very few problems with illegal formations all year long, just the opposite - very, very few infractions indeed in that area because everybody is so spread out it is easy for Officials to see the grouping and/or who is on or off the L.O.S., etc.

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.

Hope this helps and we are thrilled with the response nationwide and again, the game is for the KIDS, and this new system makes it more fun for them, allows smaller teams a better chance to compete, and as with any system, there are plusses and minuses.

Happy Holidays.

Kurt Bryan
Head Football Coach
Piedmont H.S.
www.PiedmontFootball.com
www.A11Offense.com
510-410-4717
[email protected]

[dvasques]

So, there can be on no scrimmage kick formation down, A63 lined up in the backfield and he will be eligible?

[Theisey]

Originally Posted by dvasques

So, there can be on no scrimmage kick formation down, A63 lined up in the backfield and he will be eligible?

NEVER. He is ineligble by NUMBER.

[mikesears]

Originally Posted by dvasques

So, there can be on no scrimmage kick formation down, A63 lined up in the backfield and he will be eligible?

Let me try to help because the NFL rules have more stringent numbering requirements than either high school or college.

For both high school and college, by rule, a team is required to have a minimum of five players numbered 50-79 on the line scrimmage (note that there isn't a maximum number). Any player wearing a number between 50-79 is ineligible to receive a forward pass regardless of where he lines up on the field. High School and College rules do not have a reporting system to allow ineligibles become eligible simply by reporting.

There is an exception in both rule codes to the five players required to be wearing 50-79. If a team goes into scrimmage kick formation, any number of linemen wearing 50-79 may be replaced by player(s) wearing an eligible number. But if these players wearing eligible numbers initially take an interior lineman's position, they are ineligible for the down. High school and college rules differ on what a scrimmage kick formation is. High School rules state a team is in scrimmage kick formation when a player is lined up 7 or more yards behind the center with no player in position to take a hand-to-hand snap. College rules add that is MUST BE OBVIOUS that a kick may be attempted (based upon the formation).

Hope this helps and hope I got everything correct

[JugglingReferee]

The Canadian game is so much less complicated!

What did you guys do to your flavour of football?!

[Bob M.]

REPLY: Coach Bryan...I don't believe anyone here doubts that you did the proper research on this new formation, and that the NF and your state association was thorough in its review of the legality of the A11. But one thing to remember is this: Many, many rules in Federation, NCAA, and even the NFL come about because well-meaning, innovative people learn the rules and "push the envelope." While what you're doing is perfectly legal, there is indeed the possibility that once it's observed and the Federation determines that it unduly disrupts the competitive balance between offense and defense, they may very well take steps to restrict it's use. For rulesmakers, maintaining that competitive ballance is the primary driver for rule changes.

[KurtBryan]

Dear Bob and Officials:

Part of Bob's Quote: "While what you're doing is perfectly legal, there is indeed the possibility that once it's observed and the Federation determines that it unduly disrupts the competitive balance between offense and defense, they may very well take steps to restrict it's use. For rulesmakers, maintaining that competitive balance is the primary driver for rule changes."

Coach Bryan's Reply.........

"Let us all hope the NFHS truly abides by its mission statement and intent to forever keep the game of high school football pure in its truest sense.

Being so...not only does the A-11 Offense HELP to ensure/maintain and foster a competitive balance between the entire spectrum of the much smaller vs. larger football teams forced to play each other, but in many regards it is the ONLY way to do it. If competitive balance is under review, then let us all hope the people at NFHS honestly reviewing the results of the A-11 Offense TRULY look at how great a decision it was to let it go forward.

By all Accounts this past season the A-11 was a huge success:

1. For the Kids
2. For the Fans
3. For the future of Football
4. For the Piedmont Community
5. For the Officials who worked our games
6. For the CIF and NCS as Piedmont made the playoffs but was then defeated by eventual NCS 2A East Bay Champion Las Lomas - most folks would call that VERY competitive, etc.

In terms of does the A-11, "unduly disrupt" the game of football. Nothing could be further from the truth. And as has been stated many times now, players, fans, coaches and Officials working the Piedmont games this year were not only OK with it, but we received Many compliments from top-notch Officials who worked our games.

* There are MUCH bigger problem fish to fry in High School Football and debating whether or not to abolish the A-11 Offense is not only foolish, but downright discriminatory to boot.

If the NFHS, State Federations and Associations governing High School Football want to Really tackle a Major Problem in High School football, let them please put STEROID USE on the top of the list.

STEROID USE by high school athletes is out of control and I would be happy to sit on a committee to help solve the problem.

I appreciate the forum...

Sincerely,

Kurt Bryan
HFC, Piedmont H.S.

[TXMike]

Coach Bryan - In case you did not see my sumamry of the applicable rule history here, please let me repeat:

In NCAA rules, forward passes were first allowed in 1906. At the same time, the rulemakers recognized the need for limiting eligibility and that change which authorized one forward pass said there had to be 7 players on the line of scrimmage and only the 2 on the ends would be eligible to receive that now legal forward pass. At that time, nobody was numbered. The requirement to even have numbers came in the game did not come until 1937. By 1966 teams were taking advantage of the rules and running tackle eligible passes. So to address this inequity, the rulemakers first required there be 5 players numbered 50-79 on the line of scrimmage and all 5 would be ineligible. This was not loosened until 1981 when the specific exception was put in for scrimmage kick situations. And even then, those who were coming into the game as exceptions had to report to the U so he could advise the defense.

The point is that the rules have been clear, since the advent of the forward pass, that only certain players should be eligible, and the defense should know who they are, so as to keep the game balanced for offense and defense. The A11 offense is a clear attempt to circumvent this history of balance keeping.

(The high school federation left the NCAA in 1930 so I can't speak to what they did from 1930 on. )

[JugglingReferee]

I support the efforts by Coach Bryan. Way to be inovative! Keep it up!

[Mike L]

It simply looks like a gimmick offense that could be of some advantage to a small school. But I gotta believe like most gimmicky offenses, it won't be too long before defensive coaches come up with counters to it. Hopefully the coach will make plenty of sales regarding this as is advertised on his website for this "innovation".
As others have said, there is a possibility of rules action being taken against this. It is taking advantage of a rule exception for a very specific situation that arises only occassionally and using it for the entire game. I seriously doubt this is what the rules makers had in mind when allowing the exception.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: Coach...I have no dog in this hunt, and I have no real opinion on the A11 one way or the other. I was just pointing out that the rulesmakers constantly tweak their rules to ensure that balance is maintained.

Like Mike said, the numbering rules and eligibility rules were originally set up to ensure that the defense could reasonably determine which offensive players were eligible. The scrimmage kick formation was put in to allow the kicking team to have faster players on their coverage teams without using those silly pullover jerseys they used to use. It was not intended to be used for scrimmage plays. The NCAA rulesmakers accounted for that by saying it can only be used when it "...is obvious that a kick may be attempted." Therefore, you generally won't have a scrimmage kick formation on any down other than fourth in an NCAA game. As you well know, the Federation put no such restriction on its use. That doesn't mean they ever intended scrimmage kick formations to be used in regular scrimmage downs. But the Fed rules as written currently allow that.

As for your wish that the Fed keep football pure in its truest sense, I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but I would hate to think that you would have them refrain from changing rules to keep the game equitable for both offense and defense.