Forum for Officials on A-11 Offense Now Open

[KurtBryan]

Dear Officials:

We DO NOT want to take up anymore thread space on this excellent forum, and greatly appreciate the opportunity provided to discuss the A-11.

Below is a link to our website where a NEW Officials Chat Room has been created for those Officials who have questions and/or want to discuss aspects of the A-11 Offense.

Again, we are most appreciative of this site: www.Officiating.com - for working with us. In the future, we know exactly where to go with any other officiating questions that we have.

Thank you.

Kurt Bryan

To Participate in the A-11 Offense Officials Chat Room, please go to:

1. http://www.A11offense.com

2. Click on the Link that says, "Coaches Chat Room'

3. Click "Enter'

4. Register and begin, and YES you can do it Anonymously...
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________________

Dear Officials:

There are some people on this board who are continuing to post the same mistaken things over and over again, and it is proving detrimental to the factual process we have already undergone regarding the A-11 offense.

I thought it would be beneficial to again restate what has already been said over and over again by yours truly. And, it has also been posted on our web/blog/and other web sites for several months.

To answer the last several posts on this forum:

1. YES, we took the time Prior to the 2007 season and submitted all of our research and material to the NFHS in order to ensure we were taking the proper steps, and doing everything correctly, and to execute our due diligence regarding our new A-11 offense. But we also wanted to get their feedback.

2. The NFHS was very professional and promptly replied everything seemed to be OK, but that our state rules interpreting department in the CIF would need to review it and approve it, etc.

3. We then did the same thing with the aformentioned department of the CIF, in order to ensure we were interpreting everything correctly, and to execute our due diligence regarding our new offense, and to get CIF approval.

4. Obviously it went extremely well, and we also promised to keep the NFHS and CIF informed DURING AND AFTER the season with feedback from Players, Fans, Coaches and Officials.

Obviously, we did that too, and it went well.

Sincerely,

Kurt Bryan
www.A11Offense.com

[JRutledge]

SPAM!!!!

Peace

[JugglingReferee]

Coach,

I admire your dedication to the promotion of your offense. Setting up a website, in my opinion, shows your confidence in the system, and the attention that it is getting. Not all people are willing to 'put something out there' like you have. Good luck!

[TXMike]

Well, this pretty much makes clear now what the true purpose of the A11 is and I think Rut nailed it pretty well. My advice is make as much money as you can as fast as you can because this gimmick is going to be dealt with pretty soon.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: Mike (and I know I'm 'preachin' to the choir' here)...no matter how anyone looks at it (pro or con), a few indisputable facts remain: (1) the concept of eligible numbers was added to all rule codes because the rulesmakers saw an unfair offensive advantage in having the defense unsure of who might be eligible to touch a legal forward pass on any play. (2) the numbering exception was added to the legal numbering rule to allow more 'skill' players (read 'fast') to set up on the line for punt coverage, and for punt coverage only. That's why it's allowed only when the offense sets or shifts into a scrimmage kick formation. [Mike...I don't have my copy of "Anatomy of the Game" with me. Maybe you could look up when the concept of eligible numbers and the numbering exception were added and what the precise rationale was for these changes.]

The NCAA apparently contemplated the use of something similar to the A11 and added to the definition of scrimmage kick formation the additional restriction that it can only be used when it is "...obvious that a kick might be attempted." That pretty much outlaws the use of the A11 on 1st, 2nd, or 3rd downs. The Federation obviously contemplated no such thing. Just set your QB back at least 7 yards and the A11 is legal, provided all other legal formation requiremnents are met.

The question that the Federation will need to answer if the A11 begins to propagate across the country is whether or not the use of all eligible numbers by linemen violates the principle that prompted the institution of the two rules listed above. If so, they may indeed choose to change the rule. However, that's not our (officials') choice. It is solely in the province of the Federation. Unless or until they make such a change, we'll need to adjust accordingly.

Both the NCAA and Fed rule codes are based on a simple foundation of making the game equitable for both the offense and defense. Their role is not to equalize the playing field for big, fast teams against small, slow teams. That's the province of the schedule makers.

[TXMike]

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. )

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Bob M.

REPLY: Mike (and I know I'm 'preachin' to the choir' here)...no matter how anyone looks at it (pro or con), a few indisputable facts remain: (1) the concept of eligible numbers was added to all rule codes because the rulesmakers saw an unfair offensive advantage in having the defense unsure of who might be eligible to touch a legal forward pass on any play. (2) the numbering exception was added to the legal numbering rule to allow more 'skill' players (read 'fast') to set up on the line for punt coverage, and for punt coverage only. That's why it's allowed only when the offense sets or shifts into a scrimmage kick formation. [Mike...I don't have my copy of "Anatomy of the Game" with me. Maybe you could look up when the concept of eligible numbers and the numbering exception were added and what the precise rationale was for these changes.]

The NCAA apparently contemplated the use of something similar to the A11 and added to the definition of scrimmage kick formation the additional restriction that it can only be used when it is "...obvious that a kick might be attempted." That pretty much outlaws the use of the A11 on 1st, 2nd, or 3rd downs. The Federation obviously contemplated no such thing. Just set your QB back at least 7 yards and the A11 is legal, provided all other legal formation requiremnents are met.

The question that the Federation will need to answer if the A11 begins to propagate across the country is whether or not the use of all eligible numbers by linemen violates the principle that prompted the institution of the two rules listed above. If so, they may indeed choose to change the rule. However, that's not our (officials') choice. It is solely in the province of the Federation. Unless or until they make such a change, we'll need to adjust accordingly.

Both the NCAA and Fed rule codes are based on a simple foundation of making the game equitable for both the offense and defense. Their role is not to equalize the playing field for big, fast teams against small, slow teams. That's the province of the schedule makers.

Is there a rule, Fed or NCAA, that says punts are only permitted on 4th down?

If so, why? Why do the rules not want a team to punt on 3rd down? Or kick a field goal on 2nd down?

If not, then can a team not line up in scrimmage kick formation, and decide to run a "broken play" if they feel the defense's abilities (punt coverage mechanics, for example) are not matched to what the offense thinks their abilities are on said broken play?

Don't get me wrong, I don't have a dog in this race, so my interest in A-11 is less than others', but I do admire Coach Bryan for taking his system to the NFHS for their thoughts. Either legal or illegal (eventually), I admire his thoroughness.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Don't get me wrong, I don't have a dog in this race, so my interest in A-11 is less than others', but I do admire Coach Bryan for taking his system to the NFHS for their thoughts. Either legal or illegal (eventually), I admire his thoroughness.

First of all if you read all his posts on the two boards (NF and this board); he never took his offense to the NF directly. He only took this to his state and possibly local associations. The NF is a larger body and if they want to outlaw this, all they have to do is create a rule that does not allow this but on punting down just like the NCAA and NFL already have. And there really was nothing to take to the NF, because this is legal if executed right. He is trying to sell a product above else. This offense is not so innovate that no one has seen it. I have seen it but not on every down. And if he keeps pumping it up, there will be rules created to make it illegal whether any of us like it or not.

Peace

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Is there a rule, Fed or NCAA, that says punts are only permitted on 4th down?

No there is not. It's just the NCAA has an addition to the numbering exception that states it must be obvious a kick is going to be attempted. I would think that it is somewhat obvious when this offense comes out on it's first play it is NOT going to kick. Broken plays or fakes are one thing, but this is clearly planned to not be a kick over and over again.
As for Fed, right now it's legal. If there is a change made, well we'll just have to wait & see. In the meantime, the coach can continue to market it & hopefully make some money. Although I'm not sure why anyone would pay when it's pretty easy to figure it out for oneself.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

First of all if you read all his posts on the two boards (NF and this board); he never took his offense to the NF directly. He only took this to his state and possibly local associations.

Originally Posted by KurtBryan

* 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.

What did I miss, Jeff?

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Mike L

No there is not. It's just the NCAA has an addition to the numbering exception that states it must be obvious a kick is going to be attempted.

What criteria/-on qualifies as obvious?

Originally Posted by Mike L

I would think that it is somewhat obvious when this offense comes out on it's first play it is NOT going to kick.

Why? A team always has a strategic right to give up possession for field position.

Originally Posted by Mike L

Broken plays or fakes are one thing, but this is clearly planned to not be a kick over and over again.

With my Canadian philosophy (since I don't know Fed philosophy like you do), I contend that a strategy to possibly kick with an option for something else is always effective and possible, and therefore legal. The actions of A are based on those of B. I see a similarity between this and the QB option pass if B bites to tackle him.

Originally Posted by Mike L

the coach can continue to market it & hopefully make some money.

Like Tim Curry said ["He decided to put..."] in Clue, what could be more American than that?

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

What criteria/-on qualifies as obvious?



Why? A team always has a strategic right to give up possession for field position.

you really think any team is going to obviously kick the ball on a their first possession of the game? Or obviously kick the ball with possession on the B20? Or obviously kick on 3rd and 1 to at midfield? You really think any of those situations are obvious kicking situations because it is the rule in NCAA that an attempted kick is going to be obvious? Perhaps you might look up the word obvious.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Mike L

you really think any team is going to obviously kick the ball on a their first possession of the game? Or obviously kick the ball with possession on the B20? Or obviously kick on 3rd and 1 to at midfield? You really think any of those situations are obvious kicking situations because it is the rule in NCAA that an attempted kick is going to be obvious? Perhaps you might look up the word obvious.

If I am coaching, I am likely going to run up the middle on 3rd and 1. But if I have an option for something else, I should be permitted to threaten that possibility. In basketball players are often coached to catch the ball in the triple threat position. In football, there is a history of deception in the game.

As for the definition of obvious, I think you seem to believe that there is this reality that exists above the freedom that we all have to define what obvious is.

Again, what has the NCAA defined as obvious as it relates to kicking situations? Without a definition, it seems that obvious to one person has no relation to obvious to another.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

As for the definition of obvious, I think you seem to believe that there is this reality that exists above the freedom that we all have to define what obvious is.

Again, what has the NCAA defined as obvious as it relates to kicking situations? Without a definition, it seems that obvious to one person has no relation to obvious to another.

Actually, I believe one of the downfalls of society today is the belief words can be defined in anyway one chooses to fit their situation. And I also do not see any great need for the NCAA to have to define in the rulebook what every word in the English language means. Obvious, per Websters means "easily discovered, seen, or understood". I would think the NCAA would probably agree with that definition. As with many such rules, it will depend on what the individual officials think regarding this situation and its obviousness. I continue to submit that in the examples I previously posted, it is far from obvious a kick will be attempted.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Mike L

Actually, I believe one of the downfalls of society today is the belief words can be defined in anyway one chooses to fit their situation.

This I agree with as a general rule.

Originally Posted by Mike L

As with many such rules, it will depend on what the individual officials think regarding this situation and its obviousness.

I don't like this. It's treading too much into coaching philosphy for my liking.

Originally Posted by Mike L

I continue to submit that in the examples I previously posted, it is far from obvious a kick will be attempted.

Say it's 4th and 20 - an obvious kicking situation right? 4th and 10? 9? 8? 7? 6? 5? Where do I stop? I bet it depends on the team, made up of a hundred different elements. For each official to decide what obvious is does a disservice to the team's abilities and strengths.