Forum for Officials on A-11 Offense Now Open

[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.

[Bob M.]

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.