Great, I have to deal with A-11

[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.

[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$$ in a PM. I did this for the simple reason that I believe you to be an arrogant A$$!

[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.

[bisonlj]

One thing I have not seen posted on this thread but have seen on others...the difference between a fake punt from this formation and the A-11 the fake punt formation probably has the players in position long enough before the snap for the defense and officials to determine who is eligible and who is not. The A-11 has all players off the line (except the center) and then just before the snap, 6 players step up, get in position for 1 second, and then snap the ball. Since those 6 players are going to be different each time and in different locations, it will be almost impossible for the defenders (and most importantly for us...officials) to determine who is eligible. If I'm the umpire and I can't easily tell right away who my G-C-G are because the two guys lined up right next to the center stay in the backfield, then I'm going to be lost on my keys as well.

This offense/formation is a farce and exploiting the spirit of the numbering exception and I hope the NFHS makes a change to match the college rule next year. And I really hope I don't see it all year.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

The A-11 has all players off the line (except the center) and then just before the snap, 6 players step up, get in position for 1 second, and then snap the ball. Since those 6 players are going to be different each time and in different locations, it will be almost impossible for the defenders (and most importantly for us...officials) to determine who is eligible. If I'm the umpire and I can't easily tell right away who my G-C-G are because the two guys lined up right next to the center stay in the backfield, then I'm going to be lost on my keys as well.

And yet, that determination was routine before eligible receiver numbering rules came into effect ca. 1960. And during much of that time, determination of position (line vs. backfield vs. just plain illegal) was also arguably more difficult and complicated than since the current rules came into effect (I'm not sure when that was, but around the same time IIRC). And that was with fewer officials on the field, on average. So obviously it was not "almost impossible".

Robert

[BktBallRef]

Offenses and the rules are both much more complex than they were in 1960.

[TXMike]

Source: Anatony of A Game, David M. Nelson

NCAA
1966 - Mandatory numbering for guards, tackles and center of 50-70 established.

1968 - Requirement to have 5 players numbered 50-79 on the line of scrimmage was established after forceful action by one committee member, Coach John Vaught of Mississippi, who had seen his team lose 2 games to the Crimson Tide of Bear Bryant on tackle-eligible passes.

1981- the numbering exception came into existence so that teams no longer had to put numbered vests on subs put in for punt coverage. Excepted players had to report to U before the down.

1985 - Requirement to report was eliminated but language was tightened up to ensure teams did not use the numbering exception to get around the eligibility rules.

Interestng to note what Mr Nelson had to say re the 1985 change (he wrote the book in 1991) "The coaches were placed on their honor and players with 50-79 numbering exceptions in a scrimmage-kick formation were relieved from reporting to the unpire. The system has worked very well; no attempts have been made to usurp the rule."