A-11 hits on rivals.com

[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.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by daggo66

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.

Don't look for the numbers, look to see if they are eligible by position.

What I saw most of the time the formation was legal and if illegal it was only by a foot or so. The "four receiver set" was interesting when all four went downfield. It requires the defense to be knowledgeable enough to think only one of the four is eligible and if the others go downfield, which they did, it would be a penalty if the ball is thrown past the LOS.

There was a lot of passes thrown behind the LOS which would require officials to be alert to make sure the pass does not cross.

The A-11 requires an extremely mobile QB as he seems to be running for his life on every "pass" play since his blockers are outmanned.

Piedmont has been successful with this offense but it probably has limited use. Some smart defensive coordinator will figure it out.

[daggo66]

I am far from a "smart defensive coordinator", but I could stop it quickly. The whole premise is because the team has small players and uses this to gain an advantage over larger (hopefully) slower players. One of my D-lineman, or LB's would be an extremely fast player, possiblt one that would normally be a DB. His job would be to run down the QB.

[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.