dvasques - I can't speak with authority on NFL Rules which I know you are currently using in Brazil.

NFL
As I understand it NFL rules, on normal downs you must have at least 5 men 50-79 on the LOS. If for some trick play, another 50-79 numbered player comes in and reports himself eligible to the Referees, then he can catch a forward pass.
On a scrimmage kick formation, you dont need to have those 5 men numbered 50-79. Often the long snapper has a different number, also the team might choose players who normally play defense (as they want people who can tackle the punt returner).


NCAA
In NCAA (which I understand Brazil plans to use in the future), on normal downs you must have at least 5 men 50-79 on the LOS. You can have more if you want, but even if they are in a position that might make them eligible, they are NOT ELIGIBLE because of their number.
There is nothing in the NCAA Rules about reporting to the Refs, so nothing they do can make them eligible. If a team want to use this type of formation, they can if they wish - perhaps having extra linemen helps with running plays, but it means they will not have as many players eligible to catch a forward pass.

On a scrimmage kick formation, you don't need to have those 5 men numbered 50-79. Often the long snapper has a different number, also the team might choose players who normally play defense (as they want people who can tackle the punt returner). However the NCAA definition of scrimmage kick formation includes the wording "and it is obvious that a kick will be attempted" which generally for most of a game we would interpret as meaning 4th down (you could think of other specific situations).

This whole message thread comes about because in Federation High School rules, there is not the same definition of scrimmage kick formation, hence a loophole that this particular school and coach have exploited.
This could not happen under NFL or NCAA Rules.

By 1966 is a severe and misleading understatement! Tackle-eligible plays were very well known looooonng before then!

The above would make sense if you changed "since the advent of the forward pass" to "since 1966". Decades passed during which teams were often tricky about who was an eligible receiver, and nobody thought that was somehow against the spirit of the forward pass rules or disturbed the balance of the game. Eligible receiver numbering was a very deliberate change brought in to, among other things, make administration of the game a little easier, and in full knowledge that it was depriving the offense of a tool, every bit as much as introducing the forward pass in the first place was understood as giving the offense a tool.

One impetus to the change was the adoption of platoon substitution. With the liberaliz'n of substitution rules by NCAA (Fed had already been easier) in the 1960s, It was anticipated that it would be easier to get into the game on offense someone at an ostensible interior line position who was a good receiver and could line up at end at any time.

I don't recall when Fed introduced eligible receiver numbering, but in general since the 1940s Fed has been more liberal regarding the forward pass than has been NCAA, partly in recognition of the fact that the necessary talent is harder to come by in high school. Fed legalized passing from in or behind the NZ when NCAA still required it to be from 5 yards behind, and Fed was the only major code to allow more than one forward pass per down. Fed gave consideration to awarding a TD for ordinary DPI in the end zone, but did not adopt it.

Robert

Excellent info
 

Dear Officials:

Thank you for the high level discussion, much appreciated.

The post prior to this reply stated that the people in the NFHS realized talent is harder to come by in high school than it is in college, etc.

That is exactly the reason the A-11 Offense gives public schools like tiny Piedmont a fighting chance vs. much larger and/or private schools.

Sincerely,

Kurt Bryan
HFC, Piedmont H.S.

Not sure someone who refs a game that has 12 players, lets players be in motion forward at the snap, etc really has any credibility in a discussion of the true nature of the game.

Just because you don't like a certain brand of football...

Lah me. :rolleyes:

"...get illegal procedure calls..."

No such animal.

Maybe those of you who think this concept is so great can explain why you think there is even a rule about having 5 players numbered 50-79 on the line of scrimmage? And would you support removing that requirement from the rules completly?

Thoughts
 

Dear Officials:

Hope this helps answer some of your questions and/or serves as a worthy counterpoint:

1. Why does the A-11 Offense help offset a size and strength disadvantage?

Answer: To ask an undersized and outmanned team to Push/Move and/or hold its individual and team ground vs. an overpowering opponent is impossible in close quarter combat - so to speak.

Since the advent of the Spread, small teams can somewhat level the playing field and win games if they execute well. To super-spread the field in the A-11 offense allows smaller/quicker teams an opportunity to shield off, screen and put larger/stronger defenders in space. Some coaches refer to that as: Putting the Defense in Zero Gravity, which allows them to be pushed around easier cause they have a lot of field to defend per player, etc.

The CIF already approved the A-11 Offense after tremendous, diligent and painstaking review last year, and again please read my earlier posts about why MOST people think it is a great thing for high school sports. But we never expected to please everybody and that is not our concern, our focus is the kids.

*Remember, we have direct, honest and clear feedback from 11 games working with Officials, coaches, opposing coaches and fans. So please understand much of the negative banter that some people post is not very relevant, and that is said with as much respect as possible.

Hope this helps and Happy Holidays!

Kurt Bryan

Coach, saying the same thing over and over again is rarely a way to win an argument. Besides, you really don't have to do that. I believe the consensus here is what you are doing is legally taking advantage of an exception to a specific situation and using it throughout the game. Good for you and I hope your marketing of it goes well for you.
Just realize, some people just plain are not going to like it. As an official, I couldn't care less as long as it's legal. Impartiality, following the rules, & keeping the playing field fair for both sides are my concerns. Not what kind of offense you can come up with to improve your team's advantage. I guess what I really wonder about is why you are trying to press your case in this forum. You already know it's legal. What makes you think we really care about it beyond how we have to officiate it?

"The CIF already approved the A-11 Offense after tremendous, diligent and painstaking review last year...."

Coach, why did you and your staff feel the need to the CIF to approve what you are doing?

Loophole in the rules or not, the formation per NFHS rules is legal, CIF approval or disapproval means nothing. Had you gone to the NF with this, I'm sure they would say legal, but not really what "we" intended by the rule. They (the NF) would also not be able to stop you from using it unless there was some sever safety issue with what you are doing. of course that's not the case.

So, what was the reason for asking CIF? Just curious mind you.

Understanding
 

Here are the answers to the previous two replies:

1. During and after the season we received some honest communication for us to participate with Officials outside our area regarding our new Offense. OK, I talked with a very well regarded Official and he said to lay low for now. I tried, but when we then received even more inquiries and then lots of incorrect info started showing up online which was totally wrong, it was then neccessary to help clarify things about the process we already went through and what our offense actually was.

2. In terms of why we went through the CIF and NFHS: We had a good idea that what we had developed was going to be fine but wanted to make sure we had interpreted every point correctly. So we first sent everything in to NFHS, then CIF and went through the proper approval process as we were instructed to do by the key people involved.

Case in point, if we had not done so, can you imagine how much griping their might have been? Instead, it has been mostly the opposite because we took the proper steps.



NFHS and CIF Post-Season Follow Up on A-11:

1. Hopefully all of us would agree that both bodies (NFHS & CIF) will do their annual post season follow up and in this case on the A-11 offense. Right?

2. OK, when the NFHS and CIF Key Administrators actually PICK UP the telephone and talk to the Officials in our Region who Actually worked our games (and I am not going to list names) they will quickly find out there were not any major problems in the officiating of our games.

3. Then when those key people return to the table and ask about the A-11...

1. A Lot of players like it
2. A Lot of coaches like it
3. A Lot of fans like it
4. It gives Smaller teams a more even chance to compete vs. Larger Opponents
5. And, the overall feedback from the Actual Officials who worked the Piedmont games was very positive indeed

* From that standpoint, when the governing bodies actually do an Honest and Diligent post-season evaluation, humbly, it will be very easy to see that keeping the A-11 in tact is clearly OK.


** By the way, one coach in another part of the country has been talking to us, and HE has come up with an Unbelievable new offensive system that will push the boundaries of offense in a different direction from ours, and it will be interesting to see if he gets it Green Lighted too. It is very, very interesting but it is not like our system and of course that is just fine too.

Thank you.

Kurt Bryan

Coach Bryan, everyone agrees that your system is legal. But what many of us are saying is that rule changes are driven by coach, athletic directors, and state association reps. There's going to be opposition to your system if it becomes very widespread. And when theat happens, the NCAA clause that states it's reasonable to expect the ball will be kicked will be added or the numbering exception will be removed.

The rule requiring 50-79 numbering for linemen is there for a reason. It's so the offense doesn't gain an unfair advantage over the defense. That's what's happened with your exploitation of the numbering exception.

Exactly!

What is the process for getting rule changes in NFHS? Is there a rules committee? Who is on it?

7 - 4 doesn't equal exploitation
 

Dear Offiicials:

Piedmont's 7 - 4 record does not equate to unfair exploitation on any level, but it does equal a fun and successful season.

Also but to not belabor the point...the amount of direct, email and phone calls upbeat and overwhelmingly positive feedback we have received far outweighs the negative ones.

Mind you, I like Officials and what they stand for, always have, always will.

Sincerely,

Kurt