Great, I have to deal with A-11

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by Theisey

First of all, a no huddle spread offense is not the A11 offense. NH/Spreads have been formations used for years. Nothing unusual with regards to officiating that formation.

Because a few states are saying the formation is illegal is all the more reason to the NF to step up to the plate and tell the rest of the "united" state associations that this A11 IS or ISNOT legal. That's why!

Of course the spread offense is not the A-11. My whole point from day one is that the A-11 is not a new offense. It is a FORMATION. The spread is the offense.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Warrenkicker

I'll play devil's advocate then. Say a team comes up to the LOS on 4th down with 11 players wearing eligible numbers and gets into punt formation. These are all athletes so they are all wearing eligible numbers. What would be the indicator to an official that this formation becomes unsportsmanlike?

Warren, if you want to PM me, I'll be glad to discuss it with you. But I don't want to into a big discussion here, where I feel I have to justify what I post from posters who I know aren't going to agree. Drop me a PM on this board or the other.

Originally Posted by daggo66

Of course the spread offense is not the A-11. My whole point from day one is that the A-11 is not a new offense. It is a FORMATION. The spread is the offense.

Don't piss on my boot and try to convince me it's raining.

That simply is not true. You can try to make it sound that simple but Tom is right. It simply isn't. Had the Fed got off their a$$ and addressed this thing from the beginning, we wouldn't have states going in different directions.

[Warrenkicker]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Warren, if you want to PM me, I'll be glad to discuss it with you. But I don't want to into a big discussion here, where I feel I have to justify what I post from posters who I know aren't going to agree. Drop me a PM on this board or the other.

Well I am just not seeing how to PM from this board from this work computer. I would like to discuss it a bit so maybe I will try the other board. However I am just curious about the theory North Carolina is using to determine legality. I don't feel you have to justify anything to me at least. You have to do what you are told.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Warrenkicker

Well I am just not seeing how to PM from this board from this work computer. I would like to discuss it a bit so maybe I will try the other board. However I am just curious about the theory North Carolina is using to determine legality. I don't feel you have to justify anything to me at least. You have to do what you are told.

Oh, I know that. I'm glad to discuss it with you. My PM was turned off on this site for some reason. It's back on now.

[TXMike]

Straight from the snake oil salesmen themselves...the A-11 forum:

I wanted to give you the best possible answer to the question WE get asked every single day, and that is....

HOW MANY TEAMS WILL USE THE A-11 OFFENSE THIS SEASON?

ANSWER:

To date, we have received about 5,000 contacts this off-season regarding the offense. At least 60% of those inquiries have been from coaches at the high school, and collegiate levels, One NFL coach too, etc.

Breaking it Down:

Nearly 15,000 high schools in America play 11-man Tackle football

There are Roughly 1,000 Collegiate & JC teams (Yes, we understand the more restrictive rules on A-11 for now)

So...

Humbly, let us Project at least 10 - 15 % of 16,000 total teams will Implement the A-11 in SOME capacity in 2008.

Whether they use it as their new base offense, in packages and/or as a trick play or two, etc.

Our best guess based on the feedback we are receiving is somewhere between 1,500 - 2,000 teams will use it this year. It could be a tad bit less, or a whole lot more.

AND: It is perfectly OK that in a Few states there is a Loud Minority of people that do not like the innovative and wide-open aspects of the A-11. Their attempting to ban it is Only Hurting the Kids in those few states because Most Kids love playing in this system.

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.


There are other outstanding developments in the works now that will once again benefit EVERY high school team in the country wanting to take part in the forthcoming projects on the board now with the details being worked out.

Thanks again.

[KWH]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

...the A-11 is illegal in NC. It makes no difference what the down is.

BBR-
Is a fake punt 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!

[MI Official]

So if I interpret this right, the A11 is scrimmage kick formation. So if they shift out of the formation, they are, IMHO, no longer fit the "numbering exception" of the rules. BUT, if they simply run a "normal" play I dont see how we can get them on an USC unless they use some kind of verbage to throw off the defense. All I can see is that we would have to be very aware of elligible and ineligible numbers. Somebody set me straight if I am headed off course.....

[KWH]

MI Official-
Yes, The A-11 by definition utilzes a LEGAL scrimmage kick formation and essentially runs a LEGAL fake punt play.
By lining up in a SKF the A-11 may LEGALLY utilize the "Numbering exception." Additionally, they LEGALLY run the A-11 Offense on any down under current NFHS rule.
Restated, their is no NFHS rule agains the A-11 Offense.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by MI Official

So if I interpret this right, the A11 is scrimmage kick formation. So if they shift out of the formation, they are, IMHO, no longer fit the "numbering exception" of the rules. BUT, if they simply run a "normal" play I dont see how we can get them on an USC unless they use some kind of verbage to throw off the defense. All I can see is that we would have to be very aware of elligible and ineligible numbers. Somebody set me straight if I am headed off course.....

The problem is not eligible numbers, since the point of the A11 is everyone, or nearly everyone, has an eligible number. What you have to watch for is who is ineligible due to initial position, all the shifting/motion that goes on, and if a pass is actually thrown beyond the line.

[JRutledge]

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.


There are other outstanding developments in the works now that will once again benefit EVERY high school team in the country wanting to take part in the forthcoming projects on the board now with the details being worked out.

Thanks again.

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

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by KWH

MI Official-
Yes, The A-11 by definition utilzes a LEGAL scrimmage kick formation and essentially runs a LEGAL fake punt play.
By lining up in a SKF the A-11 may LEGALLY utilize the "Numbering exception." Additionally, they LEGALLY run the A-11 Offense on any down under current NFHS rule.
Restated, their is no NFHS rule agains the A-11 Offense.

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. Will it be closed in the near future? I guess we get to wait and see.

[MI Official]

While the jury is still out on my opinion of the offense, I did go and look at the website. USC would still be a very hard sell. but there are times when the formation appears to have less than 7. That being said, a majority of it is screens and runs. My question is this... IN SKF isn't the "kicker" that is 7 yards deep supposed to be directly behind center? Likewise it looked like when they ran an "up back" he may have been between the center and the other QB.... lets just say I am shaking my head on a lot of the formations I saw.....

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by MI Official

While the jury is still out on my opinion of the offense, I did go and look at the website. USC would still be a very hard sell. but there are times when the formation appears to have less than 7. That being said, a majority of it is screens and runs. My question is this... IN SKF isn't the "kicker" that is 7 yards deep supposed to be directly behind center? Likewise it looked like when they ran an "up back" he may have been between the center and the other QB.... lets just say I am shaking my head on a lot of the formations I saw.....

It does not have to be the kicker that is seven yards back, just someone that is able to receive the snap. And you do not have to snap to the "kicker." You could snap the ball to an upback. But the bottom line is you cannot have someone under center and be allowed all the things you can do in a scrimmage kick formation.

Peace

[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)???

[JRutledge]

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 you take the intent of the rule, then I would say no. Then again I think the rule just does not want a player 4 yards behind the center and have another player 3 yards behind the player directly behind the center.

Peace