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.

[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

[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

[BktBallRef]

Coach, get a clue. You answered yes to the question below.

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.

Not possible. It can't be legal and be a travesty of the game. Your words above, not mine.

I didn't say it was illegal or a travesty. I simply pointed out the error in your reply.

[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

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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

Robert, they could have just as easily called it 'long snap formation' or something else. My guess is there's a 7-yard requirement because that's where most teams kick set their holding when attempting a scoring kick.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by waltjp

Robert, they could have just as easily called it 'long snap formation' or something else. My guess is there's a 7-yard requirement because that's where most teams kick set their holding when attempting a scoring kick.

But that's exactly the point! They did a favor to accommodate tactics in a particular type of play situation that'd been common. Similar to what NFL did when they wrote special rules applicable narrowly to players who take the snap.

Another example was when soccer style place kicking became common, and it became clear that the best form had the opposite foot plant forward of the ball's spot. To have the kicker stay onside on free kicks, some were placing the ball enough behind the awarded spot to allow that foot to stay onside, but the rules makers in various codes allowed an exception for the kicker so they wouldn't have to do that. In this case, they wrote the rule to apply regardless of which style of kick was used, but they could've written it narrowly to apply only to soccer style kicking.

As certain styles of play become common, frequently there's a choice between coaches & players adapting to the rules on one hand, and the rules makers adapting to the wishes of certain numbers of coaches & players on the other. I'm sure we're in the middle of this with A-11, and it remains to be seen what the outcome will be.

Robert

[Steven Tyler]

I've been following this thread slightly and what I've digested is:

1.) A coach has read the rule book and thought of and did something that I wondered why it hadn't been taken advantage of before.

2.) Why are the officials bickering with the coach if he has violated no rule?

3.) Members always complain that FED rules are word poorly.

4.) Coaches have been known to take advantage of poorly worded rules.

5.) When FED paints themselves into a corner, it usually takes a couple of years for the paint to dry before they will exit said corner and finish the paint job.

6.) I doubt it catches on.