a11 Offense - 11 potentially eligible receivers

[waltjp]

Dear Coach,

You're correct, if the QB is lined up 7 yards behind the LOS it is considered a scrimmage kick formation and the snapper is afforded protection. The rational behind the rule is to give the snapper protection until he's had a chance to gain his balance when he's long-snapping. The rule is in place with concern for the snapper's safety and prevents him from being bull-rushed when he's in a vulnerable position.

No, I don't feel this violates the spirit of the rule.

[BktBallRef]

Offering protection to a long snapper has nothing to do with violating the spirit of the rule nor does it exploit the numbering exception rule.

BTW, very, very rarely do I see a shotgun QB 7 yards deep.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by KurtBryan

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.

Can the NFHS say "our rules say it is legal but you can't do it"?

Originally Posted by KurtBryan

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.

Coach to one of the 17-20 players: "You are playing offensive tackle this week and wearing #63"

Now they have 5 offensive linemen.

Originally Posted by KurtBryan

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

So the school has enough money to buy jerseys for every member of the team but they cannot afford to have at least 5 of them be numbered 50-79? How exactly does that work?

Can you answer these questions?

1. Why are teams required to have at least 5 linemen numbered 50-79?
2. Why are teams allowed to have fewer than 5 when they line up to make a scrimmage kick?
3. Does the A-11 use the same numbering philosophy as the previous questions?

[TXMike]

Originally Posted by LDUB

Can you answer these questions?

1. Why are teams required to have at least 5 linemen numbered 50-79?
2. Why are teams allowed to have fewer than 5 when they line up to make a scrimmage kick?
3. Does the A-11 use the same numbering philosophy as the previous questions?

LDUB - EXCELLENT!!!!! This is EXACTLY what the entire thing boils down to and address the issue much better than the coach's weak "excuses" for the A11

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by TXMike

LDUB - EXCELLENT!!!!! This is EXACTLY what the entire thing boils down to and address the issue much better than the coach's weak "excuses" for the A11

Same questions were asked on another site and have not yet been answered.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by KurtBryan

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

LMAO!

So the company that you buy your jerseys from charges you excessively more for jerseys numbered 50-79 as opposed to eligible numbers 1-49 and 80-99?

Please coach, don't insult our intelligence.

[Tim C]

Having lived in Piedmont in the late 80's and 90's I assure you that they can afford ANYTHING they want!

But remember "Coach" told us numerous times: "Its for the kids!"

Right.

I have sent e-mails to the NFHS Football Rules Committee with my personal opinion. With my opinion and $4.00 you can get a latte @ Starbucks.

Regards,

Tim Christensen

Portland Baseball Umpires Associaiton

1st Vice President - Rules

[KurtBryan]

Dear Officials:

OK, here we go...in the "slight supplement" points I made earlier about two opposing teams unable to meet the numbering rules...it was made CLEAR to everybody who read the whole thing I was NOT talking about Piedmont kids - give me a break please and do NOT misrepresent my words. I do not do that to any of you.

But those are ACTUAL game situations I had faced vs. OTHER TEAMS in the past two years.

So...somebody really missed it on this thread and I said I was bringing up actual examples as questions and NOT the Primary point - OK?



OTHER STUFF:

1. Yes, high school football should always be for the kids - my thoughts and feelings agree on this and that is why I have ALWAYS played every kid in every game regardless of the score or outcome...on Varsity and JV...no matter what. Case closed.

2. Everybody on this board knows the answers to LDUB's questions # 1 and 2 including yours truly, so let us not waste time on quoting the rule book with definitions.

But...that leads us to question number # 3 and his earlier question.

a. Can NFHS say it is within our rules (legal) to do something but you cannot do it...basically?

YES THEY CAN...if they believed that whatever was to be done, in any way violated the spirit of the rules and/or made a travesty of the game.

* Both of those points were dressed and undressed when Piedmont got its new offense approved beforehand. Do people on this board choose to ignore that crucial point??????

b. The question about whehter the A-11 uses the same numbering exception?

WHAT? The whole reason some of you guys disagree with this offense is because it is DIFFERENT in terms of the numbering of players in certain positions.

To the mistaken person who said the same questions have gone unanswered on another board --- what? I have answered all questions, and I am getting daily requests from about 20 sites to talk X and O's and/or schematics or Officials' type questions. Only two Officiating boards I am working with.

Lastly: 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 after the A-11 was already approved.

Again, I hope this helps and it sure has been: Fun, interesting, frustrating, eye-opening and somewhat educational too.

Sincerely,

Kurt

[KurtBryan]

Dear Officials:

Here you go from another board. This man wrote an excellent post and well said.

Gentlemen,

The spirit of rule for the scrimmage kick formation is written so that a coach can place any (defensive) player in any position regardless of his jersey number...and to protect the center. It does not state anywhere that you must kick so the fake kick is always an option. The A-11 simply fakes that kick mostly / always. Nowhere does the rulebook state that you can only align to kick on 4th down either.

Perfectly legal offense under NFHS rules.

As far as making a travesty of the game in the opinion of the officials. The A-11 does nothing intentional to the opposition that would delay the game, illegally deceive or mock unless of course you don’t coach up your defense to recognize formations. Therein would be the travesty.

The rules committee agreed and approved the system.

The word loophole seems to be the common buzzword. That tax comparison baffles me. Ask yourself this…. if you diligently pay your taxes right off the form sheets and don’t take advantage of the “loopholes” (deductions) that legally exist…are you paying too much? I say the coaches at Piedmont simply know their rulebook better than the average Joe and take full advantage of it. Good for them. No reason to get chippy with them….you wouldn’t treat your CPA this way…right?

Maybe it would be best to define the spirit of the game because I don’t see the problem here.

For me it is simply to win without cheating or endangering any player. Piedmont certainly isn’t cheating with a bunch of pretty boy receivers that aren’t going to endanger anyone including themselves….. and I would say it is safe to assume that by winning school spirit is very high.

Coach Mike

[Robert Goodman]

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

In various other forums where posters write that American or Canadian football isn't true football and that only soccer or some other game is, this would be known as trolling.

Robert

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by TXMike

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

I actually visited David Nelson 28 years ago because of our shared interest in the hisotry of the rules of the game, and I'm sure he wouldn't identify his game per se as the "true football".

Robert

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by waltjp

The rationale behind the rule is to give the snapper protection until he's had a chance to gain his balance when he's long-snapping. The rule is in place with concern for the snapper's safety and prevents him from being bull-rushed when he's in a vulnerable position.

No, I don't feel this [putting the passer at least 7 yards deep] violates the spirit of the rule.

Even though they call it scrimmage kick formation? Even when they could just as easily have the passer just 5 yards deep?

There are single wing centers out there (mostly in youth football) who have to snap while looking between their legs in order to make the various snaps required for different plays. They'd like to get that protection too, but they don't want to put their fullback or tailback 7 yards deep to get it, especially on teams that like to have their FB & TB only 3-4 yards deep. Some youth circuits, out of the same concern for snappers' safety, do away with scrimmage kicks (or modify the play to not resemble a scrimmage play) entirely and require the snapper's head to be up, which forces single wing teams to use just one type of snap and forego leading the tailback to the weak side or the fullback to the strong side.

Clearly NCAA & Fed did a special favor for the kicking game, knowing that in a game of "chicken" with the snapper's neck, on kicking plays coaches wouldn't abandon the head-down snap to improve safety, so the rulesmakers flinched first. Rather than outlaw the head-down snap, they made a special rule, but tried to keep it narrow.

They could've just as easily written a rule to cover not kicking situations, but any where the snapper's head was down. The umpire's ability to see the snapper's eyes would be a sufficient way to judge. By not doing that, the rules makers are definitely affecting the game in ways safety alone would not dictate.

BTW, I can confirm Kurt Bryan's assertion, as can anyone who looks up how Hugh Wyatt devised his Wildcat formation, that coaches do take advantage of the roughing-the-snapper provisions by adopting a scrimmage kick formation with no intention to kick. Also BTW, NCAA's proviso that it be "obvious a kick may be attempted" (my italics) doesn't rule out much. Even close to the other team's goal line, it's obvious team A may take a drop kick out of that formation. (Or is it "might"?)

Robert

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by LDUB

2. Why are teams allowed to have fewer than 5 when they line up to make a scrimmage kick?

This is no more or less than a special favor to the many teams who like to sub players in in kicking situations who play other positions in other situations. For a while they allowed them instead to wear pullovers with other numbers.

It would be exactly the same if enough coaches were subbing players in similarly in passing situations. Which it seems A-11 does.

Robert

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by KurtBryan

a. Can NFHS say it is within our rules (legal) to do something but you cannot do it...basically?

YES THEY CAN...if they believed that whatever was to be done, in any way violated the spirit of the rules and/or made a travesty of the game.

WRONG again, Coach.

If the system makes a travesty of the game, then it is indeed illegal.

No one here or on the other site has said it is illegal. But it does exploit the numbering exception. You can use all the pretty words you like, get your panties in a bunch, or whatever, but that is a true statement.

I don't see it lasting. Enjoy it while it does.

[KurtBryan]

Dear BktballRef:

Indeed you are not correct in your lastest post.

If upon review prior to the 2007 season the NFHS and/or the CIF in any way thought the A-11 offense was legal per the written rule, but it actually "exploited" the numbering rule, or in any way violated the spirit of the rule, and/or made a travesty of the game ----------- then the A-11 would have never made it through the review/approval process and it would have not been allowed to go forward.

That point was carefully explained to me by the powers-that-be and was a key point during the entire approval process.

Take care.

Kurt Bryan