A-11 hits on rivals.com
 

http://highschool.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=825031

Larger video: http://highschool.rivals.com/video.a...ght&vidid=1343

The second line says it all.

Yep! I'm a mod on several of their boards. Been trying to explain why it's illegal to the masses. :(

If I recall correctly, I read that the NFHS have said that it is legal. Have yuo received more information?

And I'm trying to find out what's illegal about it.

They're in a legal scrimmage kick formation. Meaning that 1-49 and 8-99 can be lined up anywhere on the field as long as they start on the line of scrimmage and between the ends.

They're ineligible to catch a forward pass, but beyond that their positioning is legal.

As we say in basketball all the time: Ugly ain't always illegal.

Where have you read the NFHS said it was legal? All I've read is where a COACH SAID the NFHS said it was legal.

I can tell you one thing. It's not legal in North Carolina.

I have a great LD plan, so I have half a mind to phone the NFHS myself.

If the NFHA does happen to tell me that it is legal, why is it illegal in NC? Is this the state adoption thing again?

Because our state supervisor says the Fed says
 

its illegal and that's good enough for me.

According to what he has relayed from NFHS, its an attempt to deceive thus unsportsmanlike.

Attempting the deceive != unsportsmanlike.

In NFHS, is the punter faking that the snap went over his head illegal? That is a deceptive act.

In NFHS, is a fake snap count illegal? That is a deceptive act.

In NFHS, is yelling fumble when there is no fumble illegal? That is a deceptive act.

Just trying to determine why it's illegal on deception. Just because officials don't like it doesn't mean that it's illegal.

I think the NFHS has spoken on this issue, but you just have to look for it. In the 2007 Case Book, Situation B under "Unfiar Acts (9.9.3), which relates to the "Where's the Tee" nonsense contains the following observation,
"Football has been and always will be a game of deception and trickery involving multiple shifts, unusual formations and creative plays."

When my boss tells me to do something...
 

my interpretations don't matter anymore, whether its at my real job or not.

A11 exploits the Fed's numbering exemption, although I think in reality, if I could get a a good look at someone running it, I think I could find that an exempted number took an initial position in the interior line, thus rendering him ineligible.

My opinion- the Fed doesn't like it but hasn't had the time to study the rule change necessary so in order to prevent an explosion of this they've decided to rule it as unsportsmanlike until they can tweak the rule.

Is hiding the ball under your jersey illegal? That is a deceptive act.

BTW, Georgia is also taking the same stand as North Carolina.


Is the "wrong tee" play illegal? That is a deceptive act.


Is the "wrong ball" play illegal? That is a deceptive act.


Is running a player off the sideline illegal? That is a deceptive act.

Read the book. Deception will always be a part of football. But deception that gives a team an unfair advantage not intended by the rules is illegal.


Stick to the Canadien stuff, eh? :D

I do have the 2005 NFHS books, and the 2008 books are on their way soon. I believe that a communication from the NFHS is required if something by definition is legal. A team surely can punt on any down other than 4th (can't they?), and teams are also permitted to change their minds based on broken down defenses.

I'll admit that I took the coach's word that the NFHS said it was legal.

PS: Canadian has a 3rd "a", not an "e". :eek: Si parlant français, vous seriez correct.

So if your boss tells you to do something that you know is wrong, are you going to follow through? I think any good employee will know when to question something, and when not to.

All NFHS needs to do is add the NCAA language "obvious kicking" and it would be illegal.

.. and we value your opinion as opinions of others when it comes to discussing items like this. Yes, you do have to follow what you state association say, right or wrong.

The NFHS has had plenty of time to discuss and make a formal rule book ruling. If any one was following Coach Bryons postings in a very lengthy forum in the NFHS FB board, Coach B. took his teams novel formation to their highest levels in the CA high school sports administration and to the NF prior to using this formation last season.
In all responses, the play was declared legal because of the definitions already in the book.

They (the NF) should have done something about this formation in February or whenever they meet. Now is not the time to have a change of heart on something that doesn't involve player safety.

I for one, do happen to agree it should not be permitted unless it is an obvious kicking situation, but then it's only an opinion, but not really a strong feeling against the formation.

I've been told that our state interpretor as said it was OK, not sure why he had to get involved in the first place, but it probably was the result of a few teams (one in my area) that have expressed interest in using it. I sure hope it's not in one of my games, even though I do have that particular team on my schedule.

Exactly!

They aren't changing their minds and they aren't kicking the ball. They've created an offense designed around an exception that was created for kicking the ball only. It's an EXCEPTION to the rules for a specific purpose.

Yes Tom, that's what HE said.

Isn't there anyone here from Pennsylvania who can contact Brad Cashman and get us some first hand information on the NFHS Rules Committee's thoughts?

Yes, we're all aware of that. But they haven't done it.

All NFHS needs to do is add the NCAA language "obvious kicking" and it would be illegal.

I was just responding to this sentence. I should have quoted it the first time. Thanks.

If you bother to actually look up and read, Case Book 9.9.3.B, you'll find the last sentence of the ruling specifically relates to both the "wrong tee" play as well as the "wrong ball" play, and a bunch of others of the same ilk. It continues to advise, after explaining that deception and trickery are part of the game, "However actions or verbiage designed to confuse the defense into believing there is a problem and the snap isn't imminent is beyond the scope of sportsmanship."

Running a player off the sideline violates the formation rules, and could also be overed by NF: 9.5.1.g as an overt act of cheating.

Who has decided that, first, this A-11 formation provides an advantage to the offense? It seems to hold for a fair amount of additional risk for whoever is holding the ball to get steamrolled. When it might provide an advantage, by creating confusion in the defensive ranks, who has decided that such an advantage is unfair.

Throughout the history of football new strategies have been tried and have often gained a temporary advantge until defensive countermeasures were developed to render the new strategy ineffective. New strategies developed being negated by new countermeasures is a "back and forth" as old as the game.

Today's defensive teams aren't stupid and we should expect will react to any new strategies presented to them, given the opportunity to understand the attack and develop countermeasures.

Any, and all, offensive formations have to comply with current shift, motion and allignment requirements, and as long as they follow those rules can pretty much do as they like, as long as they satisfy the requirement to all pause simultaneously for that 1 second before the snap. No matter who does what, there are never going to be more than 6 eligible receivers, and for a number of decades, defensive teams were able to deal with recognition before the numbering requirements were established.

I think the weakness of this strategy is the level of precision and timing necessary for the offense to comply with all the above rules, and still defend properly against a focused, alert defense.

Fake Punt of A-11 Offense
 

How about this?

If I make the assumption the A-11 is illegal. Fourth down. A lines up in the A-11 offense. The snap goes to the player lined up 7 yards beyond the line who rather than kick throws a pass downfield to a receiver who was eligible. All the ineligibles stayed behind the line.

Then think about it, what if, the down was 1, 2 or 3?

Think this is called a "fake punt."

Can't wait to see how NFHS crafts the words!

The NCHSAA and GHSA are two entities that have decided the formation provides an advantage to the offense. For those us in those two states, that's all that matters.

Think about this...what if it was down 1, 2, 3, and 4? Doesn't that make it an offense when you're consistenetly using it the majority of the time you lineup over the ball. Isn't an exception, by definition, something that isn't done a majority of the time?

Think about this...the team uses the numbering exeption with no intent to punt the ball or run a fake punt play.

Think about this...what if the team is putting 11 eligibly numbered players on the field and using a series of shifts in an effort to confuse the offense.

It's simply not as simple as you're trying to make it sound.

Wording of the rule? That's easy...Sonofaump has already addressed that.

"The numbering exception is legal only in obvious kicking situations."

I want to preface my comments by says that I won't be seeing the A11 personally - in Germany they play under NCAA rules which have (as already pointed out) closed this loophole.

Reading the arguements abouth the A11 however lead me to think of another very strange offense that I have seen. Here they call it the 'Swinging Gate'

Basically a very unbalanced line where all interior linemen are on one hash mark and the snapper (last man on the line with elligible number) is on the other. The snap goes either to the QB directly behind him or directly to a RB behind the line. I expect you can all visualise what it looks like.

Seeing it on the field here, there were defenses not even breaking their huddle because they didn't realize it was a formation. Other defenses running around like the well known headless chicken.

I can imagine a lot of the same talk about this sort of offense. Not illegal, but definately something so different it would make some people uncomfortable.

Just to let you know - the team I was with at the time spent an afternoon evaluating the offense and figured out a huge problem in how it was run (here). So with a little time and studying, hopefully the teams that need to oppose your A11 will be able to come up with something that will shut it down (or balance everything out) and keep the players having fun and playing ball!

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

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.

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.

You missed my point, it is not simple.

Unfortunately, I cannot locate any background on the exception and the logic behind it, therefore, can only speculate it was created to give the offense some leeway on punting situations. By giving the exception teams don't have to change jerseys when a member of the punting team who is an interior linesman but maybe a tight end otherwise. The rules restrict using anything but a legal jersey.

NFHS could remove the exception and solve the A-11 problem but that would hurt a number of teams and players disproportionate to those who benefit from the A-11.

Then think technically any team that uses the shotgun has the potential to utilize the numbering exception but most do not.

Therefore, for NFHS or some interpretation to simply say it is illegal ignores the fact the numbering exception is a vital part of the game that officials can easily administer. But the A-11 uses that exception to make a travesty of the game in my opinion and was never intended by the rulesmakers to be so subjected. Plus, it places a great burden on officials to track players and their positions.

Personally, I think the A-11 is a bit of deception that should not be a part of the game. Leaving my personal opinion where it belongs I will abide by the rules as written or modified by NFHS.

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

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."

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.

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.

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.

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

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. :cool:

Nuff Said
 

My state is telling me it's a deceptive act, that's all I need to hear.
Ya'll have fun with Bryan's repeated A-11 threads this season, as I won't have to read any! :p

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.

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.

eligible receivers
 

The 5 men on LOS can't go downfield, but they can catch a pass behind the LOS.

Better clarify that you mean they (anyone) can catch a "backwards" pass.

right, lateral pass.

No, backwards. Words have meaning.

What's a lateral pass? :confused:

The points of origin and termination of said pass are equidistant from any yard line when such measurements are parallel. While possible, the phenomenon is not measureable by the human eye, and therefore ruled not possible in a football game at this time. To simplify the analogue nature of the game, passes have been categorized into 1 of 2 categories: forward and backwards. :p

oh stop.
 

If you throw a 10yd backward pass and it's dropped is it a incomplete pass or ruled a lateral? your technical description is very impressive.

Ed, I don't have a historian's viewpoint, but I do remember in the early-to-mid-80s a rule was changed that affected my high school team, as well as most teams. The old rule had no numbering exception, but allowed teams to put smaller, quicker guys who were typically backs play speacial teams with a special slip-over vest that had an ineligible number on it.

THat was changed with the numbering exception that allowed the same players to play the same positions on special teams without those slip-over vests.

Another interesting item came up about 10 years ago when a coach around here had someone sew a flap onto a jersey made out of the jersey's material -- same color. (I hope I can describe this right) The flap was in the upper square of the block 8 of jersey number 81. The flap had velcro to hold it in place in one of two positions. Either it was in the middle of the 8, or you moved it and it covered one side, making it a 6. So 81 becomes a 61. The purpose of that shirt was to use a kid who they wanted to be a tight end, but might need as a tackle.

From what I remember, it was determined to be illegal and I don't think it was ever used in a game. That could be the answer to the A-11 -- nine guys are wearing 80-89, and five interior linemen pull the flap to be nmbered in the 60s on any particular play.:eek:

It's ruled a grounded backward pass.

Rule 2-31 Passing

ART. 2 . . . A forward pass is a pass thrown with its initial direction toward the opponent’s end line.

ART. 3 . . . A forward pass has gone beyond the neutral zone if at any time during the pass, the entire ball is beyond the neutral zone.

ART. 4 . . . A forward pass ends when it is caught, touches the ground or is out of bounds.

ART. 5 . . . A backward pass is a pass thrown with its initial direction parallel with or toward the runner’s end line.

ART. 6 . . . A backward pass ends when it is caught or recovered or is out of bounds.

Now, there are some who will say that the word 'lateral' does not exist in the rule book. They would be incorrect.

Rule 2-9 Fair Catch

ART. 3 . . . A valid fair-catch signal is the extending and lateral waving of one arm, at full arm’s length above the head, by any member of the receiving team.

Rule 2-17 Free-Blocking Zone

ART. 1 . . . The free-blocking zone is a rectangular area extending laterally 4 yards either side of the spot of the snap and 3 yards behind each line of scrimmage. A player is in the free-blocking zone when any part of his body is in the zone at the snap.

Rule 2-26 Lines

ART. 6 . . . The sideline is the lateral limit of the field of play and the end zones. It extends from one end line to the other.

Rule 7-1 Before the Snap

ART. 2 . . . The snapper may lift the ball for lateral rotation but may not rotate end-for-end or change the location or fail to keep the long axis of the ball at right angles to the line of scrimmage.

There are some other mentions of 'lateral' in the book but it's in reference to 6, 8 and 9 player games.

Same thing as tie goes to the runner in baseball. In my world, there's no such thing as a tie. :D

The terms "lateral" and "backward[s]", although not equivalent in ordinary language, have a long history of equivalence as applied to passes in North American football, even if not all codes currently use the terms. AFAIK Canadian football has never used "backwards" as the descriptor.

NCAA at one time used the phrase "lateral or backwards". The phrase quickly migrated to the Definitions under "pass" (where it defined synonyms), was retained by NFL, and the "lateral or" part was eventually deleted (separately) by Fed & NCAA. However, outside of the Definitions section, NFL refers only to the "lateral" version of the term.

Robert