Great, I have to deal with A-11

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And just because some kids like playing it, does not mean the rules should allow it at the end of the day. I am sure the kids that play against it do not like playing against an offense that makes the game into a gimmick.

If we went by the opinion of children I've coached, only pass plays would be legal.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Mike L

All that is true, but I'm sure the resistance to this offense comes from the use of an exception put in place for a specific purpose and using it all the time thereby eliminating the exception aspect of the rule. This was clearly not the intent of the rule, but the founders of this offense are, for now, legally exploiting a loop hole.

Clock strategy was not the intent of the timing rules, but there it is. The clock was stopped under certain cirumstances to not penalize team A when extra time was needed to ready the ball for play. They didn't intend for teams to conserve time by deliberately making the ball dead in certain ways.

Robert

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by MI Official

I understand the no one under center and it doesnt necessarily have to be a kicker. What I am saying is that in any and all graphic representations of the SKF the player has been directly behind the center 7+ yards deep. is this still a legal SKF if the player(s) are behind the guard(s)???

If they can get to the snap, why not? We're going to kick only from formations that have nobody standing straight behind center, only behind the guards. They won't be scrimmage kick formations as the rule book defines them, but we will in fact use them for kicking -- and for all our other plays.

Robert

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by TXMike

It is going to Really fun to watch the A-11 Offense in action this fall in the states of:

AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA,, MD, ME, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NH, NJ, NV, NM, NY, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, UT, VE, VI, WA, WI, WY.

We can remove LA and WY from that list of states. Both have stated the A-11 will be illegal in their states.

Originally Posted by KWH

BBR-
Is a fake punt on also illegal in NC?

I would again challange you to explain to me ANY difference between a fake punt and the A-11 Offense?

The A-11 Offense is best described as:
A team that elects to run a variation of LEGAL fake punts.
Nothing more, and nothing less!

Again, BBR; as I have said before, I challenge you to prove me wrong by a NFHS rule!

LOL KWH! I challenge you to show me to show me an NFHS rule that says a player can be ejected for wearing a bicep band!

You and I have had this discussion. I'm not interested in your challenges nor does it mean anything to me that you attended a meeting where some of you decided the offense is legal. As I told you before, your opinion and 99 cents are worth a large coffee at McDonalds's in NC. And GA. And LA. And WY. And WV. And DC.

Further, I don't believe anyone here is is so simple minded as to believe the A-11 is just a fake punt play. But you continue to spin it anyway you like it, as state associations continue to rule it illegal.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

as state associations continue to rule it illegal.

No such luck here. I attended our interpretation meeting tonight and I specifically asked what the thoughts were on this. The state is not commenting one way or the other, nor are they offering any guidance. A few of the guys there (This wasn't our entire chapter, just the rules and mechanics committees) were aware of it and some had heard of a few teams that plan to use it at least selectively.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by waltjp

No such luck here. I attended our interpretation meeting tonight and I specifically asked what the thoughts were on this. The state is not commenting one way or the other, nor are they offering any guidance. A few of the guys there (This wasn't our entire chapter, just the rules and mechanics committees) were aware of it and some had heard of a few teams that plan to use it at least selectively.

That's unfortunate that they didn't address it at all. Evidently the NFHS Rules Committee has the same philosophy - ignore it and maybe it will go away.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Clock strategy was not the intent of the timing rules, but there it is. The clock was stopped under certain cirumstances to not penalize team A when extra time was needed to ready the ball for play. They didn't intend for teams to conserve time by deliberately making the ball dead in certain ways.

Robert

I suppose that somehow applies to the discussion, I'm not sure how though.

[Blue37]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Here is a big problem with your numbers. I live in one of those states and I have not heard of a single school that is using the offense. And I have not heard of anyone in my state that has to officiate it. And I live in a fairly well populated state in terms of schools and football programs. And just because some kids like playing it, does not mean the rules should allow it at the end of the day. I am sure the kids that play against it do not like playing against an offense that makes the game into a gimmick.

Peace

These are not Mike's numbers. They are from the A-11 website. See the first line of his post.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Blue37

These are not Mike's numbers. They are from the A-11 website. See the first line of his post.

And that means what? If anything the fact that you are attributing this to a sales website, should illustrate how blow out of proportion this information is. I seriously doubt that many schools across the country are using this offense. With all the states that have outlawed the offense should be enough evidence of that alone.

Peace

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Further, I don't believe anyone here is is so simple minded as to believe the A-11 is just a fake punt play. But you continue to spin it anyway you like it, as state associations continue to rule it illegal.

Obviously the A-11 is more than just a fake punt play, but basically that is what it is. It makes no sense why your state would rule the A-11 USC instead of just adopting the NCAA rule and basically not allow the numbering exception until 4th down.

This is what the A-11 is



This is a somewhat popular punt formation



What is the difference between this formation and the A-11 on 4th down? All 11 players have eligible numbers. Team can fool around with having the "tackle" actually being the end; the defense must pay attention to who is on the line. Teams can change the spacing between their linemen and make the formation look a lot more like the A-11 picture above. The punter rolls out to the right and has the option to run, pass, or kick.

So now your state is making this formation illegal on 4th down when it had been around well before the A-11 was ever invented. A much better choice would have been to copy the 6 words out of the NCAA rule book.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by LDUB

Obviously the A-11 is more than just a fake punt play, but basically that is what it is.

I hope you get an opportunity to re-read what you just wrote and see how ridiculous it sounds. "Obviously a football is not brown but basically it is brown." Good grief.

It makes no sense why your state would rule the A-11 USC instead of just adopting the NCAA rule and basically not allow the numbering exception until 4th down.

If you have a problem with the the NCHSAA's decision on the A-11, then 'd suggest you write them. Email addresses are available on their website. Perhaps they'll care what you think. Personally, I couldn't care less.

[KWH]

BBR-
Very professional response to LDUB's post. Informative, innovative, and thoughtful! You have most certainly earned your position as moderator on the NFHS site based your professionalism and your acute sense of detail.

[BktBallRef]

KWH, you've set such a professional example for all of us. You have certainly earned your spot on the NFHS Rule interpreters Committee, questioning the integrity of fellow officials, name calling and making personal insults throuigh private messages. Yes, you're an outstanding example!

[JugglingReferee]

Well then.

[KWH]

BBR-
1) I have never once claimed to be nor am I a member of the NFHS Rules Interpreters Committee.
2) I have asked "fellow officials" to provide the source of their information when they post an incredibally bold statement.
For example, if Harvey Schmidlap were to state "Offisides is to be enforced in NH in 2008" I might ask Harvey for a copy of the rule reference he was referring to, and/or the memo from his commissioner. I do this to force people to put some credibilty into their posts. Unfortunatly you consider this action quetioning their integrity. That is your opinion, and your opinion only!
3) I did indeed called you an arrogant A$$ in a PM. I did this for the simple reason that I believe you to be an arrogant A$$!