a11 Offense - 11 potentially eligible receivers

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by KurtBryan

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

I'm not a key person, just a fan (and recently a coach), but I'll state my preference.

My first preference would be to eliminate eligible receiver numbering, and to substitute a system like that used in Arena football and some versions of touch football for the eligible lineman whereby the ends would have to hand-signal briefly their presence on the ends of the line, some time between the last shift and the snap of the ball, to be eligible to receive a forward pass.

Failing that, my second preference would be to have some other way of accommodating ineligible numbering in kick formations -- either that of the NFL and some adult minor leagues of reporting eligible, or the former method of wearing an over-jersey with "correct" numbers.

Robert

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by KurtBryan

Dear Officials:

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.

www.PiedmontFootball.com
www.A11Offense.com
510-410-4717
[email protected]

Gee, I wonder why?

[KurtBryan]

Dear Officials:

I hope you had a great Christmas Holiday.

I have really enjoyed this forum and greatly respect every one of your opinions.

I spent a lot of time on the phone today with Coaches and Officials from various parts of the country who had contacted us about the A-11.

And even though a couple of guys were not fans of the A-11 offense, many more of them were totally in favor of it - because of the possibilities it brings to the game for the kids and the sport itself.

There has been such a strong and positive response over the last few months (with some negative ones too), and based on what several Coaches and Officials have said to me lately about the direction that the game of football is headed - it seems very likely that the A-11 offense is here to stay, and in only one season of use it has quickly done tremendous good for a small team like Piedmont. In future years there might be teams that would like to try something like the A-11 if they so desire.

Thank you very much for all of your replies and feedback and I wish you all a Happy New Year.

Sincerely,

Kurt Bryan
510-410-4717

[BktBallRef]

While I realize that you would like nothing more than for the A-11 to stick around, tht doesn't mean it will.

I know that I've written to my state asscoiation concerning it and know others that have as well.

Only time will tell.

[KurtBryan]

Dear Officials:

I am going to try and relay something as gently as possible...

Unfortunately for a few of the the "neysayers" on this board, it appears you have tried to champion a cause to eliminate Piedmont's A-11 offense because you are not in favor of it for your own personal beliefs.

Instead, after yours truly has been asked by your peers and coaches to help review the details about the A-11 on this board and others -you have not taken into account some critical points:

If some people clamor for a rule change to outlaw the A-11 - but after its first season of use the A-11 has been "mostly" viewed as a good thing by the various factions listed in earlier posts (coaches/officials) - then the NFHS will have to be Honest and Diligent in its post-season review, of course as will the CIF.

Just like they did in their Pre-season ruling...that not only is the A-11 OK to use, but it does Not violate the spirit of the rules and it does Not make a travesty of the game.

Subsequently it has proved to be fun and exciting.

In short, the NFHS and CIF are not going to be negligent in their post-season review. Instead - and it has been pointed out to me multiple times over the last several months, IF the powers-that-be feel the need, they are going to discuss things with the actual people who had first-hand experience with the A-11, and not simply take the word of people who might not like it but have zero application with it.

Why?

Because the overwhelming amount of coaches and officials involved in Piedmont's games did not have problems with the A-11 and many of them liked it very much for their own personal reasons, and that has been well documented.

Instead, on here, there seems to be some people "banging some pots" because they do not like it, even though they have never coached against it nor officiated an A-11 game.

Do you get my point?

I am not trying to convince the negative people who view the A-11 as not good - because I understand you hold your own personal views.

But there is a real "disconnect" between some peoples' negative perceived view and the fun, positive REALITY of what this new offense has done for the kids and game.

* As promised to the NFHS and CIF before the season began....after the 2007 season using the A-11, we sent DVD copies of our games and a detailed accounting of how things turned out this year. Not only did we follow up by carefully again reviewing the Mission statements for those groups and why the A-11 was a great match on those points for the kids, but also what excellent feedback we had received.

I apologize for being long-winded and I hope these points are not ill-received.

Sincerley,

Kurt

[LDUB]

You seem to be missing the point. The numbering exception during scrimmage kick formations is allowed for a certain reason, and your offense is not it.

Many rule changes come about because of innovations in the game. Teams get creative and then the rules are changed to outlaw what they were doing.

You have said that the A-11 is a good thing because it allows small schools to compete with bigger schools. The NFHS writes their rules to maintain a certain balance between the offense and the defense. The rules are not written to allow smaller (less talented) schools to compete with bigger (more talanted) schools.

I don't think anyone is against the A-11 for personal reasons as you say. You have to admit that the A-11 takes advantage of a loophole in the numbering exception regulation. The A-11 was not thought of when it was written. They are just saying that they are against it because it is not the intended consequence of allowing less that 5 players numbered 50-79.

[TXMike]

Originally Posted by KurtBryan

Dear Officials:

I am going to try and relay something as gently as possible...

Unfortunately for a few of the the "neysayers" on this board, it appears you have tried to champion a cause to eliminate Piedmont's A-11 offense because you are not in favor of it for your own personal beliefs.

Instead, after yours truly has been asked by your peers and coaches to help review the details about the A-11 on this board and others -you have not taken into account some critical points:

If some people clamor for a rule change to outlaw the A-11 - but after its first season of use the A-11 has been "mostly" viewed as a good thing by the various factions listed in earlier posts (coaches/officials) - then the NFHS will have to be Honest and Diligent in its post-season review, of course as will the CIF. Just like they did in their Pre-season ruling...that not only is the A-11 OK to use, but it does Not violate the spirit of the rules Nor does it make a travesty of the game.

Subsequently it has proved to be fun and exciting.

In short, the NFHS and CIF are not going to be negligent in their post-season review. Instead - and it has been pointed out to me multiple times over the last several months, IF the powers-that-be feel the need, they are going to discuss things with the actual people who had first-hand experience with the A-11, and not simply take the word of people who might not like it but have zero application with it.

Why?

Because the overwhelming amount of coaches and officials involved in Piedmont's games did not have problems with the A-11 and many of them liked it very much for their own personal reasons, and that has been well documented.

Instead, on here, there seems to be some people "banging some pots" because they do not like it, even though they have never coached against it nor officiated an A-11 game.

Do you get my point?

I am not trying to convince the negative people who view the A-11 as not good - because I understand you hold your own personal views.

But there is a real "disconnect" between some peoples' negative perceived view and the fun, positive REALITY of what this new offense has done for the kids and game.

* As promised to the NFHS and CIF before the season began....after the 2007 season using the A-11, we sent DVD copies of our games and a detailed accounting of how things turned out this year. Not only did we follow up by carefully again reviewing the Mission statements for those groups and why the A-11 was a great match on those points for the kids, but also what excellent feedback we had received.

I apologize for being long-winded and I hope these points are not ill-received.

Sincerley,

Kurt

I am sure the XFL, Arena Football, Canadian football, etc may be fun and exciting to many folks but they are not true football and their rules do not have to keep true football in mind when being made/revised. You mght consider taking your offense to some ofthe places that play 6 or 8 man football and where eligibility is not the issue that it is (and should be) in 11 man football.

[KurtBryan]

Dear Officials:

1. I would first like to respond to the above quote a couple of posts earlier: "You seem to be missing the point. The numbering exception during scrimmage kick formations is allowed for a certain reason, and your offense is not it. Many rule changes come about because of innovations in the game. Teams get creative and then the rules are changed to outlaw what they were doing."

Answer: This goes to the heart of what has been tracked and documented all along - Piedmont already underwent a serious off-season review regarding this offense for: numbering of potentially eligible players, scrimmage kick offense, being in the spirit of the rules and potentially making a travesty of the game. And...Piedmont's offense already passed all of those tests and more - otherwise the A-11 would have never seen the light of day, etc. In terms of teams get creative and then rules are changed to outlaw what they are doing...that would be fine and dandy if Piedmont had not already undergone the entire evaluation process beforehand, and if the majority of the feedback had not been so good.

2. The question about keeping a balance between offense and defense raises a great point...and there is not a "football" man in the country that believes an overall Piedmont record of 7 - 4 in anyway shape or form conveys an unworthy balance in favor of the offense vs. the defense.

7 - 4 is not 10 -1 or 11 - 0, etc. It is a good record but not great.

And, if smaller Offensive teams must play larger and physically superior Defensive teams based on league scheduling and/or alignment Classification set forth by state or local governing bodies...then doesn't the A-11 help keep that balance so the smaller offensive teams can be more competitive against the larger Defensive ones?

*Repsectfully, that was the overwhelming opinion of nearly everybody who had hands on experience with the A-11 this past season. Realistically, does anyone truly believe the NFHS and CIF are going to discount that pure fact?

It was the Number One compliment put forth about the A-11, that it allowed smaller Offensive Teams to more evenly compete vs. their Larger Defensive Foes.

Otherwise, there would be no point in utilizing an offense like the A-11...so again in Reality, the A-11 is in line with the NFHS Mission of helping to keep things competitve between Offense and Defense.

Sincerely,

Kurt

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by TXMike

I am sure the XFL, Arena Football, Canadian football, etc may be fun and exciting to many folks but they are not true football and their rules do not have to keep true football in mind when being made/revised. You mght consider taking your offense to some ofthe places that play 6 or 8 man football and where eligibility is not the issue that it is (and should be) in 11 man football.

How is Canadian football not true football? Because we have 12 players instead of 11? Is it the bigger field that threatens your endurance? Different penalty application? A way to score 1 point?

Or these:

1. When have you watched Canadian football?
2. When have you played (competitive) Canadian football?
3. When have you officiated Canadian football?
4. When have you coached Canadian football?
5. And lastly, what would you do/say if your son said, "Dad, I want to play football, but the only scholarship I received was from the University of Western Ontario, a leading medical research university in the world?"

There are so many many people that disagree with you, it isn't funny. There is a large CFL-viewing public in the US, so much so that CFL games are carried in many markets.

Please though Mike, please define what "true football" is, and by who's definition this is, and how and why that definition came to be.

I think you're better off seeing all flavours of football for what it is, not what it isn't. So you're not a fan of the AFL, XFL or the CFL. Big deal. That fact and a quarter is worth a phone call.

Myself, I go to AFL games because they're fun. I watched the XFL because it was fun. I referee Canadian football because it is fun.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by KurtBryan

Answer: This goes to the heart of what has been tracked and documented all along - Piedmont already underwent a serious off-season review regarding this offense for: numbering of potentially eligible players, scrimmage kick offense, being in the spirit of the rules and potentially making a travesty of the game. And...Piedmont's offense already passed all of those tests and more - otherwise the A-11 would have never seen the light of day, etc. In terms of teams get creative and then rules are changed to outlaw what they are doing...that would be fine and dandy if Piedmont had not already undergone the entire evaluation process beforehand, and if the majority of the feedback had not been so good.

Yes, it passed the test, it is legal. That has nothing to do with the rules committee deciding that the A-11 is not the intent of the numbering exception and adopting the NCAA rule.

Originally Posted by KurtBryan

2. The question about keeping a balance between offense and defense raises a great point...and there is not a "football" man in the country that believes an overall Piedmont record of 7 - 4 in anyway shape or form conveys an unworthy balance in favor of the offense vs. the defense.

7 - 4 is not 10 -1 or 11 - 0, etc. It is a good record but not great.

Maybe Piedmont would have been 3-8 without the A-11.

And it does create a change in the game. In a normal offense there are 5 players numbered 50-79 who will never be eligible to catch a forward pass. The defense can easily identify who is eligible and who is not. The A-11 changes that.

Originally Posted by KurtBryan

And, if smaller Offensive teams must play larger and physically superior Defensive teams based on league scheduling and/or alignment Classification set forth by state or local governing bodies...then doesn't the A-11 help keep that balance so the smaller offensive teams can be more competitive against the larger Defensive ones?

No. The NFHS (or any rules makers) do not write the rules to allow smaller (less talented) schools to have a better chance at beating larger (more talented) schools. You are completely missing the point. The rules create a balance between the offense and the defense, not between good teams and not so good teams.

Originally Posted by KurtBryan

*Repsectfully, that was the overwhelming opinion of nearly everybody who had hands on experience with the A-11 this past season. Realistically, does anyone truly believe the NFHS and CIF are going to discount that pure fact?

I have no idea what the CIF does, but it would not surprise me if the NFHS decided that the A-11 was not the intent of the numbering exception and adopted the NCAA rule.

Originally Posted by KurtBryan

It was the Number One compliment put forth about the A-11, that it allowed smaller Offensive Teams to more evenly compete vs. their Larger Defensive Foes.

Replace smaller with bad and larger with good and see if everyone still feels the same.

"A-11 allows bad Offensive Teams to more evenly compete vs. their good Defensive Foes."

Should the rules be written to give less talented teams a better shot at winning?

Originally Posted by KurtBryan

It was the Number One compliment put forth about the A-11, that it allowed smaller Offensive Teams to more evenly compete vs. their Larger Defensive Foes.

Otherwise, there would be no point in utilizing an offense like the A-11...so again in Reality, the A-11 is in line with the NFHS Mission of helping to keep things competitve between Offense and Defense.

You just contradicted yourself. You said that the A-11 creates a balance between the offense of small schools and the defense of large schools (giving the offense an advantage in some way). Then you say that it creates a balance between the offense and the defense. You can't have it both ways.

Personally, I think the A-11 is a great idea. But I also think that it is exploiting the numbering exception. A great idea within the rules, but I would not be surprised if the rules were changed to make it illegal.

I think you should accept the fact that the A-11 was not the intended use of the numbering exception, and that there is a good possibility that the NFHS will eventually adopt the NCAA rule, especially if the A-11 becomes more widespread.

[KurtBryan]

LDUB:

Thank you for a stirring debate and although we see things differently on this issue, it still begs these and other questions:

1. Why do the NFHS rules have to be exactly like the NCAA, when the NCAA rules are not exactly like its superior - the NFL?

Answer...it doesn't and they don't. Each group has some varying rules due to talent, draft, money, scholarships, and overall goals of the governing bodies.

For example, since the NFL has the "best of the best" players, it requires Two Feet inbounds for it to be a completed pass and not one foot, as you know.

2. After the A-11 already underwent a very thorough pre-season review before it was approved on all of those previously mentioned points, it is slightly misleading (although I do not think you were trying to do so) to state the A-11 does not meet the intent of the rules - when it already has met and been within the fold of the intent and been ruled upon as such. Otherwise, it would have never made it through the reveiw process intact.

**Also, and I am using the next two items as a slight supplement to bolster my opinion and Not as the primary ticket... OK?

What about those high school football teams who either:

a. do not have enough OL players to fully meet the Eligibility numbering requirments in every situation in football - but have enough players to legally field a team?

Maybe they have only 17 - 20 players on their team and only 4 OL, etc.

Or...

b. do not have the funds to purchase the exact numbered jerseys to meet the numbering requirements?

I have personally coached against teams like that each of the past two years. Those teams had some extremely talented players but either not enough money or correctly numbered players to meet all of the criteria each time. And that problem is not only found in our area but around other parts of the country as well.

** My point is, the NFHS understands the KIDS must always come first and some flexibility must be maintained to keep things even between the offense and defense as you stated earlier. All is not black and white in the amateur world of high school football.

Everything else is secondary to the overall experience for the kids.

*** If the NFHS and CIF thought the A-11 was in any way Bad for the game or violated any of the aforementioned intent of the rules - they would have killed it from the get go.

However, they let it run and fortunately it turned out well and good for the high school kids.

Is that fair enough?

Kurt

[TXMike]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

How is Canadian football not true football? Because we have 12 players instead of 11? Is it the bigger field that threatens your endurance? Different penalty application? A way to score 1 point?

Or these:

1. When have you watched Canadian football?
2. When have you played (competitive) Canadian football?
3. When have you officiated Canadian football?
4. When have you coached Canadian football?
5. And lastly, what would you do/say if your son said, "Dad, I want to play football, but the only scholarship I received was from the University of Western Ontario, a leading medical research university in the world?"

There are so many many people that disagree with you, it isn't funny. There is a large CFL-viewing public in the US, so much so that CFL games are carried in many markets.

Please though Mike, please define what "true football" is, and by who's definition this is, and how and why that definition came to be.

I think you're better off seeing all flavours of football for what it is, not what it isn't. So you're not a fan of the AFL, XFL or the CFL. Big deal. That fact and a quarter is worth a phone call.

Myself, I go to AFL games because they're fun. I watched the XFL because it was fun. I referee Canadian football because it is fun.

Read "Anatomy of a Game" and the mysteries of "real" football will be revealed to you.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by TXMike

Read "Anatomy of a Game" and the mysteries of "real" football will be revealed to you.

Be a mate and provide a summary, will ya? At least a link?

But asuming that this publication has something worthwhile in it, what is it that makes this/these author/s some authority figure of what "real" or "true" football is or is not?

BTW, you never answered my questions. But, I surmise that I can answer them for you:

1. No.
2. No.
3. No.
4. No.
5. No son of mine will play "pretend foosball - be d@mn the free medical degree".

[TXMike]

[QUOTE=JugglingReferee]Be a mate and provide a summary, will ya? At least a link?


QUOTE]

http://www.udel.edu/PR/UpDate/94/14/13.html

[KurtBryan]

Dear Officials:

Over the past few months, it has been brought to my attention from coaches and Two very well known officials nationwide that there is already a LOT of teams that put their QB at 7 yards or more behind the L.O.S. to get the benefit of the Center being "protected" by the scrimmage kick formation rule, etc.

This has been going on for years.

Does that in your opinion also violate the spirit of the rule respectfully?

Sincerely,

Kurt