REPLY:

By the way, here's what I've dug up from the Federation side of things:
1976 - the numbering rule was added to (1) require five numbered 50-79 on the line, and (2) ensure that eligible receivers would only be wearing 1-49 and 80-99. Prior to this if a #77 was on the end of the line, he was eligible by rule
1982 - The numbering exception was added so that skill players on the punting team would no longer have to wear those pull-over 'pennies' with 50-79 numbers on them. But it still required any exceptions to report in to the umpire.
1983 - Requirement to reportto umpire is removed.

First of all he said he went to the CIF on another site and got approval with them. He never mentioned the NF directly other than claiming the CIF said the there was nothing illegal by NF rules.

Secondly the rules are clear, going to the NF and getting a letter is not going to change the rule that already exists. And if you read the other board, many people clearly stated how legal this was. And what is the NF going to say, do not use it? This is a completely legal offense under their rules.

I am even skeptical that he had anything in writing from the NF at all. But then again, he is trying to sell something so if you want to take his word for it, be my guest. But I do not know why this is a commendable thing. The NF is over around 48 states and do not have direct jurisdiction over this school and the offense.

Peace

I disagree. He clearly states that he went to the NFHS.

Why did he go to the NFHS? I do not know. However, I routinely get coaches asking my interpretation on situations in my pre-game coaches meeting.

I can see that if a coach comes up with a system that seems to be radically different, instead of talking to little old me, s/he takes the concerns directly to the rulesmakers.

If the offense is legal, what other interp is there to why he went to the NFHS other than due diligence?

I am not sure what this means.

So what? You obviously do not understand the role of the NF. A state can make a much more restrictive rule despite what the NF does. My state has done this a couple of times with NF rules because they wanted to stop certain actions. The NF is only as good as states that support them. They do not even have power like the NCAA.


I also do not know why. And I also do not completely buy the statement because he tried to make it sound like he has some special approval from the NF before, and it was revealed that he really did not have this so-called "approval." Also I have never heard of anyone getting that kind of approval in the first place. Maybe they do give approval, but usually the states are responsible for the rulings on things from specific states.

I do not know how things work up north and what they do in your country. But the NF is made up of states that decide to maintain membership. For example Texas does not go under the membership of the NF. Or a better example is Iowa has two different state associations. One if for the girl's sports, the other is for the boy's sports. I know at one time Softball in Iowa had a completely different rulebook. So if he goes directly to the NF means nothing. It is possible other states might change their rules and not allow this offense because they feel it is deceptive (which is within their right to do so). The NF is not all knowing about powerful.

Let me put it this way. I do not believe him unless he shows the actual letter. And even if he shows the letter, so freakin what? It does not change the fact that the NF might find a way to change the rule. The NF changes rules every year to create a balance in the rules or they adopt rules from other levels.

Peace

Bob, I think that we, as officials, have a responsibility to make our state association rep aware of the system and how it works. They may not be as active as we are on Internet discussion boards and searching the web. I have emailed our state rep regarding the A-11 because I want him to be informed, should someone bring this up at NFHS meetings. I encourage other to do so as well.

I'm not lobbying, I just want an informed decision. Remember, the NFHS IS the member state associations.

REPLY: BBR...I agree 100%. I was just making sure that people wouldn't take it upon themselves to 'make' the A11 illegal. Only the Fed can do that.

Do we have to rehash all this? Tackle eligible plays had been common all along! Teams very frequently used shifts & motion to disguise who was on the end of the offensive line. And that was before the heads-and-hips rules for determining who was on the line and who in the backfield; take a look at the positioning rules from those days (still carried in the NFL book as the rule, but ruled according to the "guideline" that is the NCAA rule), and you'll see how hard that could be for both the defense and officials!

Why was that the "inequity", rather than the liberal substitution rules that made subbing in better receivers who could line up at tackle or end more attractive? (A side effect of the itty-bitty change that made offensive & defensive platoons once again feasible?)

Robert

No, only obvious that a kick might be attempted. And how often does that not apply?

Jeff,

I raised the question of his claim that he contacted FED. Actually, I didn't question his claim. Rather, I stated that he 'alleged' to have contacted NFHS and CIF. He replied by telling me I was being immature. :rolleyes:

And that is why I do not believe him or see how contacting either organization makes a difference. I contact my state organization all the time; it does not mean that just because they give me a ruling, there will not be a ruling that will change in the future. I definitely see your point. ;)

Peace

Agreed. It's completeley lega...right now. :)

The NFHS began their Winter Meetings today (in Hawaii no less!)

The NFHS Football Rules Committee meets on January 19th. I would urge everyone to contact their state association rep and educate them regarding the A-11.

Restating Facts
 

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

Why?

None of it matters if the membership votes to change the rule.