a11 Offense - 11 potentially eligible receivers
 

Has anyone else heard of this offense?

http://a11offense.blogspot.com/2007/...1-offense.html

They take advantage of the numbering exception. They put 11 players on the field with eligible numbers, put a snapper over the ball and then shift 6 of the remaining 10 players on the LOS just before the snap. They leave 2 players 7 yards deep who can take the snap. It's confusing for the defense because they have no idea who will be eligible until just before the snap.

Yes, it has been discussed before. A video can be seen here.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...03501262187897

I searched a11 but didnt find it.

The video I saw didn't show the pre-snap shifting so it was difficult to assess.

This offense wouldn't work in Canadian ball because our mechanics dictate that we verbalize to B who the ineligible receivers are that do not conform to the numbering rule, and who the eligible receivers are that do not conform to the numbering rule. How do we know? Team A is required to tell us. ;)

I received a DVD yesterday of a game this team in action. There is not a whole lot of shifting or motion and it is generally done legally. There did appear to be a lot of fouls by the offense for something procedural. I did not see what they were although the announcer typically said "illegal procedure". (R was not miked and the DVD did not include his signals) Perhaps the refs were flagging the formation as it did appear at times they may have had some mugwomps.

Bottom line, will not work in NCAA because of the numbering issue. And if your Federation chiefs have any sense they will act in the offseason to incorporate a similar numbering rule to the NCAA to shut down this BS. Anyone who studies the history of American football knows how this violates the spirit of the rules. I am also surprised at how apparently defensive coaches where this team plays have not managed to figure out how easy it is to defend. In this video they have kids playing "pass defense" on clearly ineligible (by position) receivers.

REPLY: For the Fed types who may wonder what TxMike meant by the 'numbering issue,' the NCAA recognizes a scrimmage kick formation (and the numbering exception that goes along with it) only when it's "...obvious that a kick might be attempted." Therefore, in general this offense couldn't be used on 1st, 2nd, or 3rd downs in NCAA.

Mike, I watched the YouTube video provided by the coach and, even though you could not read the numbers, I also saw mugwumps on just about every play. I feel that their strategy is to bring them as close to the LOS as the officials will let them just to add to the uncertainty of who's eligible.

Another point about the NCAA is that once the center is over the ball, and the numbering exception has been recognized ie numbers 45 and 43 being in what would be normal guard positions, and 32 and 87 being in the tackle positions and "covered" by the players on the end of the line, any shift that "exposes" any of these players results in an illegal formation...once they are part of the exception (not having 5 plyers numbered 50-79), they remain ineligible....

Agreed. If this thing becomes very widespread, I believe they'll make it illegal as well.

That is exactly their strategy.

The problem is they're not assuming "normal guard positions" until just before the snap.

REPLY: That's correct...I had forgotten to mention that. In Fed, just like NCAA, anyone lining up in or shifting to an ineligible position does remain ineligible throughout the down. Only difference is in Fed, no illegal formation.

I hope it's made illegal before it gets widespread. It would be a nightmare for officials. Can you imagine if they ran no-huddle with this?

We already have no numbering requirements in our 9-man ball, but then again, it's only 9 players to worry about.

Gotta give 'em a C for creativity, though.

I don't see how you can say that, given that eligible receiver numbering rules weren't introduced until decades after the forward pass was legalized.

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 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. )

Does that mean that I can have only 4 players numbered from 50-79 or 90-99 on the line on offense? And have on eligible numbered playerd "covered" on the line to play as an OT, for exemple?

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.

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

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.

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?

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?

Sharing of Ideas about A-11 Offense
 

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]

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.

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 :)

The Canadian game is so much less complicated!

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

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.

following up
 

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.

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. )

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

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.

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.

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

Coaches, ADs, and others recommend changes to their state association representatives. The reps decide what they want to present to the committee. Questionaire surveys are sent out scross the country, asking for input concerning the proposals.

The committee is comprised of state association representatives. New members come on and old members rotate off each year. The rules committee presents their recommendations to the entire membsership, who then vote on those proposed changes each year.

Coach, all that and 99 cents will get you a cup of coffee at McDonald's.

Right now, in the 48 NFHS football states, very few people know anything about your system. While you might think you've heard from a lot of people, there are hundreds and hundreds of varsity head coaches in every state. How many have you had communication with? Several hundred?

This thing will be a victim of its own success. If it does become successful on any kind of scale, it will be shut down, as it should be. Until then, it is a somewhat insignificant blip on the radar.

Summation
 

Dear Officials:

In keeping with the reminder that I was asked by several Officials via online chat or phone calls to post information and opinions on these types of excellent boards, here you go:

Over the past 4 months, we have heard from approximately 500 coaches and Officials combined, with another 500 via email too. Suprising, fun, nice, etc.

And here is from another post online forum, and sometimes it is better to use the words of others, not always but sometimes. This is a quote from a San Franciso bay area coach on another thread............................................ ......see below:


"Wow. Something amazing to consider. That the game of football can't handle innovation. That it would be best of football remained the same. Would everyone continue to watch football if every game looked like the Minnesota Vikings Chicago Bears Monday Night bore-a-thon. Can anyone differentiate the style of football played by all the NFL teams other than the Patriots & Colts? When the game quits evolving it will die.

Whether we like it or not, we are in an era of innovation in the game of football. Spread option, Florida offense, Texas Tech offense, Rutgers 2 pod spread punt, 49ers A-11 formation punt vs Carolina, De La Salle's 4-1-2 spread punt in the NCS Championship Game. . . .the list goes on.

This is what football needs to keep evolving as the greatest game. All the innovation should be embraced. The guys doing all this innovation have the balls to try it, in the face of "traditionalists" who want to limit change in the game."

coachfrisco

"Regarding my last post, I am a real fan of entertaining football. I saw Piedmont play and loved their A-11 offense. They are one small school trying something different, in one small area of the country and people who have never seen it are calling for it to be banned. . .that would be a shame.

I coach in the San Francisco Bay Area and first learned about this two quarterback A-11 offense from an article in a local newspaper at the beginning of the season. I was intrigued and followed it all year. They got beat the first two games, then won 7 in a row to make the play-offs. They got a ton of positive press and every Friday night I looked forward to seeing their highlights on our local High School Sports Focus program. One of my friends refereed one of their games and he told me how cool it was that Piedmont was trying something different and that it was one of his most enjoyable games to referee this season. I had an opportunity to see one of their home games later in the season and it looked confusing to me at first (the defense looked confused too). But as the game went along you could see how they were spreading the defense into 3 zones and shifting to create mismatches. One thing that impressed me seeing it in person, was how they used a deadly draw to limit the defensive pressure. Their QB was also able to sprint out much easier than I expected, and one of the covered receivers on the right side delivered a devastating crack back to a defender chasing him. It was great to see and I hope they do not ban it. Our staff is looking forward to learning more about how the A-11 works at the NorCal coaching clinic."

coachfrisco

Oh, well, that changes everything doesn't it? 1,000 people, eh? Wow.

You just don't get it, do you? None of what you've written makes any difference. You're exploiting a rule that was written to create a balance in the game. If enough people don't like the system, it won't last.

Take it to the XFL or pee wee football. This type of "innovation" would be more than welcome there. This is NOT within the spirit of the true game of football. It is easy to be "innovative" when you do not have to worry about the rules. SOme coaches thought it was "innovative" to bring their offense to the sideline on 4th and short from the 50 and in and then rush 11 guys in quickly to the line of scrimmage hoping to catch the defense in the middle of subbing or with wrong personnel so the offense could "trick" them as to their intent. The rulemakers shut this down, rightfully so. The same will happen to the A11 although there is no danger of ever seeing it in college or the pros as the rules already prevent it.

reply and thank you
 

Dear BktballRef,

You simply asked me in your earlier post above how many people had contacted us about it?

Just being honest and thank you.

Kurt:)

Yes sir, and that's exactly my point.

We won't settle anything here. But good luck and Marry Christmas.

Coach:

Does California (you are in Calif. right?) not break football schools into classifications A, AA, AAA, AAAA, etc?

That all sounds great and wonderful but now you have highlighting a flaw in the rules that are currently on the books. I would not be surprised if individuals take your claims and change the rule. You even posted this on the NF website to highlight the issue with the rule and how this offense is so great. And I do believe that people from the NF read some of these boards for rules situations so they can get an idea of what might be going on throughout the country and make recommendations based on possible rules issues.

Let me fill you in on another little secret, the issues of steroids are local issues and nothing the NF has jurisdiction over. My state has already taken some action as it relates to steroids and might institute some kind of testing.

Peace

NJ has been testing for 2 years.

kurt,

for your offense, do you have 5 guys with "lineman type" bodies in there, or do you have 11 skill guys in there at all times?

So O linemen don't have any skill? :eek: :D

misc
 

Dear Officials:

(I had to copy most of this from my post on another forum cause I am dealing with many requests and it saves time)

* About the OL question. Yes, we use OL in the Middle Box (3) players much of the time, TE's too. And, if some OL do not play that much in the A-11, we also switched them to DL and LB, they loved it and it made us even better too.


**Over the past week, I have received some very nice emails and phone calls from your Officiating Peers nationwide who wish to remain Anonymous (for now) but are actively viewing and/or participating in this online forum and others forums on the net.

Please let me summarize their key points as they have asked me to do, fair enough? Some of this will be familair ground.

1. High School football rules do not have to be the exact same as NCAA or NFL, never have and never will. For public high schools, talent level is a crap shoot from year to year.

2. The A-11 Offense is a fair and just innovation of the game, and has already undergone diligent review prior to this season

3. Thousands of high school offensive football teams nationwide already spread out the Defense by their alignment, and then shift/cover/uncover Eligible Numbered WR/TE/RB to pressure and force the Defense to respect "potential threats downfield."

4. The A-11 does the same thing as those other offensive systems who operate as above in terms of making it hard on the Defense to determine who is or is not Eligible on a given play

5. The A-11 does not give Piedmont an unfair advantage over other teams. Piedmont's 7 - 4 overall record in 2007 is direct testimony to that. A good season but not dominating by any means.

6. The actual Officiating Crews who worked Piedmont's games in 2007 handled everything fine in various parts of California, with or without advance knowledge of the A-11. The game is ever-changing and it is up to the Officials to adapt

7. And, this point has been stressed by several coaches and Officials who have contacted us, and is the primary reason the A-11 was developed in the first place.....It gives smaller, (espescially) public schools a better chance to compete vs. the larger schools and/or private schools they must play, which makes the games more competitive and is better for high school athletics.

8. Lastly, the A-11 was well received on many different fronts which is good for the game, while understanding not everybody would be happy about it. That is a fact of life.

Thanks again.

Kurt

You are right, but often the rules do change to what happens at the other levels. That is just how it works. Welcome to the world of HS sports. When the pro and college rules try something and it works, they tend to bring it down to the HS level.


I really do not know what that means. And that is why the fumbleruskie was outlawed too (and other plays like the "where is my ball play").

You are right, but it often does not work very well. Most of the successful HS programs where I live mostly run the football or run an option style or wing type offense. It does not mean there are not some successful pass offenses, they just need a good QB to run it or it is a flop.

Actually it does not. You are using one part of the rule to confuse the defense in knowing who is going to do what. Whether you like it or not that might be seen as unfair and might be soon outlawed. Keep pumping it up and it will soon be outlawed. ;)

It might be unfair, but it is legal. And the two things do not always have to match. Once again, it might be outlawed soon if someone feels this is a potential problem.

The issue is not just about the officials, it is if the rules committee feels there is an unbalance in favor of the offense.

Just because coaches have asked you about it, does not mean it will not be made illegal.

Once again, this is not something you get to decide. And if you keep talking about it on this website, someone might be trying to find a way to make it illegal. You already have one coach complaining on another site about it. Just because coaches think it is great; do not be surprised if some are behind the scenes contacting their local people to outlaw this offense as it relates to the "scrimmage kick" portion of the rules.

Peace

Thank you for the great forum
 

Dear Officials:

Thank you so much for the outstanding forum, it is very much appreciated.

I have much to do over the break and won't be posting on here for a while. I wish you all the best.

Sincerely,

Kurt Bryan

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

Gee, I wonder why?:rolleyes:

End of the year wrap up
 

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

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.

Thank you for the detailed discussion
 

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

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.

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.

Balance between offense and defense
 

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

good debate
 

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

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".

[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

Scrimmage kick formation Offense
 

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

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.

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.

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

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

Now they have 5 offensive linemen.

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?

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.

LMAO! http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...es/roflmao.gif

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? :confused:

Please coach, don't insult our intelligence.

~sigh~
 

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

excellent but not correct
 

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

direct quote from another board
 

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

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

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

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

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

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.

bktballref you must be corrected
 

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

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, 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.

Guards eligible
 

I had a 9-man playoff game this year in which the guards (players next to the snapper) were eligible because they were off the line. It took me a little by surprise when they went out for a pass. Nine-man has no numbering requirements so you are looking at position in terms of eligibility. They had 5 other players on the line so there was no foul.

I can imagine how confusing it might be if the A-11 was used.

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

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.