Great, I have to deal with A-11

[TXMike]

Now we are letting this ridiculous, unethical BS from California even tear us apart. Maybe those snake oil salesman will come out on top after all

[Adam]

Originally Posted by KWH

3) I did indeed called you an arrogant A$$ in a PM. I did for the simple reason that I believe you to be an arrogant A$$!

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say BktBallRef doesn't care. Whether that makes him an arrogant A$$ or a discerning reader, I don't know. Not that the two are mutually exclusive.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by TXMike

Now we are letting this ridiculous, unethical BS from California even tear us apart. Maybe those snake oil salesman will come out on top after all

Does this mean the terrorists have already won?

[OverAndBack]

Here's what I don't get: IF the NFHS says something is NOT illegal, how can a state under the aegis of the NFHS (which is not, I presume, a state like Texas, which doesn't use Fed rules) say it IS illegal?

I know certain states can do certain things a different way, some mechanics and procedures vary from state to state, but can the Fed actually say something's kosher and yet states can just say it's illegal? I don't get that.

I do agree with JRut that I think there's a bit of hyperbole in all of this - this seems like a semi-complicated offense that, unless you have the skill position players to run properly and kids with enough brains and attention span to remember how to do everything it requires, you're better off not running it (or at least not running it much).

But I think it's gotten to be like a Bigfoot sighting now. By next week, we'll have heard that 700 high school teams in the Mountain Time Zone alone are running it or considering it, and it'll be 1500 by the week after that. When we're basically just waiting to see what happens when the season actually, you know, starts.

I think I understand the gist of the thing - they're in a scrimmage-kick formation, which gives them the numbering exemption whether they punt or plan to punt or not. What I still don't understand is how more than just the two guys on the end of the line would be eligible receivers (I know backs would be).

And I plan to ask tonight at our local meeting what our state wants us to do about it and what we should look for. Is it as basic as "make sure they have seven on the line" and "watch for ineglibles, and they are players A4, A5 and A6?" I don't know.

I'm not expecting to really see it happen (much, if at all), but I don't want to be the guy with the blank expression on his face if it DOES come up.

[KWH]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say BktBallRef doesn't care. Whether that makes him an arrogant A$$ or a discerning reader, I don't know. Not that the two are mutually exclusive.

Your assesment of BBR is correct.
He has not responded as of yet as he is desperatly searching archive after archive of my old posts in a desperate (yet futile) to attempt to prove me a liar.

How goes the search BBR??? Keep digging!!!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

Here's what I don't get: IF the NFHS says something is NOT illegal, how can a state under the aegis of the NFHS (which is not, I presume, a state like Texas, which doesn't use Fed rules) say it IS illegal?

The NF is not all powerful. If a state wants to make something illegal because they feel it does not fit the mission of their organization, then that is their right. All the NF can do is take them off as a member, but if the NF did that for every interpretation a state gives that does not fit the exact rule language, the most they can do is take away their voting rights. Now that would only matter if a state cared. Clearly Texas is an example of a state that does not care.

The best example that I can think of was in basketball last year. There was a new rule having to deal with uniforms that was announced years in advance. The IHSA said they were not going to enforce the penalty portion of the rule and that all violations of the new rule should be reported to the IHSA with a Special Report Form (for those not in Illinois, these forms are used for ejections). This was clearly in violation of the NF Rule. As far as I know the NF considers the IHSA to be in 100% compliance or membership with the NF. This is just the example I know, there are many more across the country.

Peace

[OverAndBack]

Wow. Sounds like anarchy to me.

I'm all for the concept of "states rights," but I would think a national governing body would act as a sort of Supreme Court.

But, just as all politics is local, your state office is who you have to answer to at the end of the day, so if they say "Do it this way," you're going to do it that way.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by KWH

Your assesment of BBR is correct.
He has not responded as of yet as he is desperatly searching archive after archive of my old posts in a desperate (yet futile) to attempt to prove me a liar.

How goes the search BBR??? Keep digging!!!

You must have mis-read me. He hasn't responded to your juvenile rant simply because he doesn't give a sh!t what you think.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You must have mis-read me. He hasn't responded to your juvenile rant simply because he doesn't give a sh!t what you think.

A man wtih his thumb on the heartbeat of this forum!

[daggo66]

Some people like to argue for the sake of arguement. Not long ago we were all against the A-11, now many are supporting it by arguing against the states that have called it illegal. KB must be laughing his a$$ off. At this rate he'll be able to afford the real Billy Mays and have this thing on late night TV. My understanding is that the NF has allowed states to make individual rulings because this thing is really still very small. If it gets bigger they may make a statement. I am willing to reserve judgement until I see it for myself on the 23rd.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

A man wtih his thumb on the heartbeat of this forum!

Once I removed my thumb from that other place, I had to put it somewhere.

[Blue37]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

It means you either misread the post or deliberately tried to portray TxMike as a proponent of the system. It means you attributed clearly quoted information to the person quoting it. It means you used the wrong pronoun. It means you should have used "their" instead of "your".

And in this post, again the lack of comprehension is exhibited. I did not attribute the quote to the sales website, TxMike did. I merely pointed out he had done so.

I agree with you about the ludicrousness of their numbers. My association will be working close to fourty schools this fall, and none of them have used this in any of their scrimages. I talked to the Assistant Executive Director in charge of football for the State Association and he was not aware of anyone (out of approximately 350 teams) in the entire state who was using it.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Blue37

It means you either misread the post or deliberately tried to portray TxMike as a proponent of the system. It means you attributed clearly quoted information to the person quoting it. It means you used the wrong pronoun. It means you should have used "their" instead of "your".

And maybe you are thinking way too hard about what we are discussing here. I only was responding to things TxMike said and referenced. Whether he is an advocate or not is really not my concern or the issue.

Originally Posted by Blue37

And in this post, again the lack of comprehension is exhibited. I did not attribute the quote to the sales website, TxMike did. I merely pointed out he had done so.

You really are taking this a little too seriously. It is just a conversation. I have no idea or care if anyone likes this offense. I really think at the end of the day we are making mountains out of molehills as to what this offense is or what it is not.

Originally Posted by Blue37

I agree with you about the ludicrousness of their numbers. My association will be working close to fourty schools this fall, and none of them have used this in any of their scrimages. I talked to the Assistant Executive Director in charge of football for the State Association and he was not aware of anyone (out of approximately 350 teams) in the entire state who was using it.

That was really the only point I was trying to make.

Peace

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Mike L

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

Somebody said this was a loophole that was being exploited in an unintended way, and I'm pointing out that's not the 1st time for football, and in the case of the timing rules people decided it was perfectly OK.

Robert

[Mike L]

Sorry, but I think comparing timing rules used throughout the game vs a numbering exception put in for a very specific purpose/reason is like comparing apples to oranges.