A-11 hits on rivals.com

[Fedex]

So, what's the purpose of the numbering rule if you have an offense that exploits the numbering exception? Why was the numbering rule added in the first place? I am praying that I don't see it in Michigan!

Scott

[Warrenkicker]

Of course I really don't have the background information to support these statements but I think they probably are accurate.

I feel the numbering requirements were established so that it was easier for the defense and the officials to be able to determine who would be eligible. A few years back the Fed started clarifying/revising the rules to specify that deception by the offense as to trying to confuse the defense as to who was actually in the game was illegal. The rules obviously state that football is a game of deception but deception as to who it actually in the game is illegal. Thus I feel that the next logical step is to start making it illegal as to who is an eligible receiver. The numbering requirements are there for a reason and also the exception is there for a reason. Just like anything else, you start abusing and misusing a rule it gets taken away.

It seems to me that the NFL and NCAA have thought of these issues and worded their rules accordingly. Maybe the Fed can catch up on day and solve this problem.

[ajmc]

What's new, or different, about someone figuring out a way to exploit a rule? I'm not a proponent of this "A-11 offense", but neither do I think it's a plague going to destroy civiliazation. If, and it's still a big "IF", this strategy has an overtly negative effect on the game, rule revisions may become necessary, but it seems there's still a significant distance between "now" and "if".

Will this offense create unsurmountable difficulties for defenses and officials? I certainly don't know. One can draw a picture of a beautiful woman, but most won't find making love to the picture very satisfying.

This offense seems to rely, heavily, on discipline and timing at an exceptionally high level and the presumption of a defensive alignment being confused and rendered impotent by hesitation. Officials help balance the perspective by understanding, observing and strictly enforcing the alignment, shift and motion rules and defenses can add to the balance by maintaining focus and flexibility, acting as a unit and developing effective countermeasures, something they have been doing as a matter of routine for 100 years.

Creativity has long been a process of trial and error, and far more "new ideas" fail than succeed, under their own weight than regulatory edict. Before new rules are issued, isn't it reasonable to determine whether the existing rules are sufficient to handle what for now, is still a perceived problem.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Warrenkicker

I feel the numbering requirements were established so that it was easier for the defense and the officials to be able to determine who would be eligible.

Exactly. But the forward pass was played for longer without an eligible receiver numbering rule than it has been with one. No doubt about it, the requirement of eligible receiver numbering was as much a decision to hamper the offense as legalizing the forward pass was to help it. But it did have the byproduct of making the officials' jobs easier on net.

Before that it was common to shift players onto & off the line to produce new end and back positions and hide eligible receivers. They didn't play "A-11" because there were more subtle ways to do it. And most of that time the rules regarding position on the line or in the backfield were more complicated than today's fairly easy landmarks; in Canadian football it was a judgement call. And to this day it's common to dispense with eligible receiver numbering in youth football.

I notice (as with Mr. Redding's remark "in the history of college football" quoted in another thread) that football administrators tend to have a time horizon in thinking about the game that doesn't take into account anything from the time before they were familiar with. What's "normal" to football depends on what time period you consider it over.

Robert

[Bob M.]

REPLY: Earlier this month, the NFHS Interpreters' Meeting was held in Indianapolis. Note: This was not the Rules Committee so they were not at liberty to make any rule changes. The A11 was discussed. Here's a brief synopsis of the discussion from one of the attendees who regulary publishes on the NFHS board. So, this is the real scoop--from the Federation:

"After reading the previous earier thread about what the Fed might have said regarding the legality of the A-11 offense, I'm offering the following summary of what was discussed at the recent interpreters meeting in Indy.

There was a presentation on the A-11 at the meeting. The presentation included video of all of Piedmont's offensive plays in the first half of a game. It was very confusing and difficult to tell how many players were on the LOS. Moreover, on several plays, ineligibles ran downfield on pass patterns, then blocked defensive backs. In those situations, a pass was thrown and completed behind the LOS, thus avoiding any OPI or ineligible downfield fouls. On a few other plays, it looked like there were not enough players on the LOS.

The conclusion of the group (including members of the editorial committee) is that there is nothing in the rules to make the offense illegal. While no one liked it, I think that penalizing it because we don't like it would be inappropriate.

Attendees were asked a somewhat rhetorical question as to what should be done: make it illegal, or do nothing and hope it dies on its own. We discussed the NCAA language ("obvious kicking situation") but some felt that description was too general and subject to too much interpretation. Others felt that the offense would go away on its own, because a sharp defensive coordinator could easily find ways to neutralize the offense. Moreover, everyone understood that any rule change to make the offense illegal will have to be done at the rules meeting in January. Until then, there's not much we can do to prevent it, and we shouldn't penalize a team for using it, notwithstanding our feelings about the offense.

If anyone wants to suggest a language change, the deadline is October 31. Work with your state association, because the NFHS will only accept proposed rules changes from state associations."

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Bob M.

REPLY: Earlier this month, the NFHS Interpreters' Meeting was held in Indianapolis. Note: This was not the Rules Committee so they were not at liberty to make any rule changes. The A11 was discussed. Here's a brief synopsis of the discussion from one of the attendees who regulary publishes on the NFHS board. So, this is the real scoop--from the Federation:

This is the Interpreters take, not the NFHS Football Rules Committee. Therefore, I don't know that we can assume it's the real scoop from the Federation.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

This is the Interpreters take, not the NFHS Football Rules Committee. Therefore, I don't know that we can assume it's the real scoop from the Federation.

Think this is what it is for 2008. The Rules Committee does not meet again until 2009.

I would highly suggest that everyone file their opinion on the A-11 offense and what they think should be done.

BTW. Someone posted a video from Rivals.com. It is worth a look to see the A-11 in action.

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

Think this is what it is for 2008. The Rules Committee does not meet again until 2009.

I would highly suggest that everyone file their opinion on the A-11 offense and what they think should be done.

BTW. Someone posted a video from Rivals.com. It is worth a look to see the A-11 in action.

I saw that video and it's worthless because you can't see any numbers. You might as well be looking at any no huddle spread offense.

[Bob M.]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

This is the Interpreters take, not the NFHS Football Rules Committee. Therefore, I don't know that we can assume it's the real scoop from the Federation.

REPLY: BBR...it was the NFHS Meeting of interpreters...chaired by Bob Colgate, the NFHS rules editor, and the other officers of the NFHS Rules Committee. It was Mr. Colgate who said that it was legal until the full Rules Committee met next January to take up any proposals designed to deal with it. This was not just a bunch of interpreters getting together--it was a NFHS-sponsored event with NFHS officers chairing the meeting.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Bob M.

REPLY: BBR...it was the NFHS Meeting of interpreters...chaired by Bob Colgate, the NFHS rules editor, and the other officers of the NFHS Rules Committee. It was Mr. Colgate who said that it was legal until the full Rules Committee met next January to take up any proposals designed to deal with it. This was not just a bunch of interpreters getting together--it was a NFHS-sponsored event with NFHS officers chairing the meeting.

Don't get you panties in a bunch, Bob. I never said it was "a bunch of interpreters getting together." Say what you want, the NFHS Football Rules Committee has issued see anything official and I don't expect they will.

Makes no difference to me. We have our instructions and have been told what to do.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Bob M.

REPLY: Earlier this month, the NFHS Interpreters' Meeting was held in Indianapolis. Note: This was not the Rules Committee so they were not at liberty to make any rule changes. The A11 was discussed. Here's a brief synopsis of the discussion from one of the attendees who regulary publishes on the NFHS board. So, this is the real scoop--from the Federation:

...If anyone wants to suggest a language change, the deadline is October 31. Work with your state association, because the NFHS will only accept proposed rules changes from state associations."[/COLOR][/I]

I see only a few good changes possible:

1. abolish eligible receiver numbering entirely, going back to status quo before ca. 1960
2. abolish the exemption for scrimmage kick formations
3. disallow forward passes when a formation is legal only because of the scrimmage kick exemption
4. make the requirement of 5 numbers 50-79 apply to any, and only, forward pass downs (flagging formation foul retroactively); or disallow the forward pass on any down where the requirement is not met (flagging the pass)
5. limit the scrimmage kick exemption to 4th down
6. have players "report eligible/ineligible" as in NFL & some minor leagues

Any others?

If #2 is used, they could also allow pullover numbers as NCAA did.

#4 has a precedent in Canadian football. For a span of some decades they required 5 players on the OL, but 7 on any down in which a forward pass was thrown. They didn't require 7 players on the O line on all downs until well into the 1960s.

Any of the above changes would be improvements IMO.

Robert

[ajmc]

You're avoiding one possible scenario, simply allow the application of current rules be applied to this offense and observe whether, or not, they are appropriate to deal with preventing any imbalance from arising that might be detrimental to the game.

The first step in solving any problem is to verify that a problem actually does exist.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

You're avoiding one possible scenario, simply allow the application of current rules be applied to this offense and observe whether, or not, they are appropriate to deal with preventing any imbalance from arising that might be detrimental to the game.

The first step in solving any problem is to verify that a problem actually does exist.

I was writing about possible changes, not a possible non-change.