Great, I have to deal with A-11
 

We just had our state interpreter meeting tonight. MD is taking the stance that it is legal, while acknowledging that other states are not. DC is not allowing it and NC is being very strict. We were told that NC will levy an USC on the entire coaching staff if they use it. If they use it twice in the same game they will eject the entire coaching staff. MD says they are going with the NFHS ruling that it is legal. One of the teams I cover has been running the spread very successfully for several years. They lost the state final game last year. I have them in my first scrimmage on the 23rd where they plan on unveiling the A-11 in a scrimmage against the team they lost the state final to. I also have them in the first game of the year. It will certainly be interesting.

What NFHS ruling?
As far the we know, they have been silent on this in 2008. Not even a peep saying no rule is being violated.

If you have something direct from the NF, please share it with us.

Yes, the A-11 is illegal in NC.

Yes, the penalty will be unsportsmanlike conduct.

No, the foul is not assessed to the entire coaching staff. Completely and totally false.

And how in NC are they rewriting the rule to distinguish the illegal A-11 from any other use of the existing numbering exception?

The decision by several states to rule the A-11 illegal has been discussed in several different threads on several different boards. Look it up if you're interested. I only posted here to clarify the misinformation that was given to daggo66.

If no rule is violated, then why state that something is legal? I'm just relaying information that I received directly from my SI. According to him the NFHS has told the state interpreters that the A11 is not illegal. Where he got the NC thing about the coaching staff, I couldn't tell you, but that is what he told us. Bottom line is that I will soon see this thing in person. It should be interesting since this team already runs a no huddle spread.

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!

Don't let any foul go uncalled
 

Back to daggo66's point, I notice that even the best teams that run the offense often are guilty of illegal formations, ineligibles downfield, etc.

Were I in your shoes (and thank you, GHSA, that I'm not!) I would work hard to make sure I flagged each and every time you have an ineligible downfield, 6 on the line, etc. If you and your crew even think you have such a foul, go ahead and drop the flag and talk out what each of you saw after the play's over. If you have to wave it off, no big deal. But if a team wins with an A-11, you want to make sure they won because of their ability, not because they gained an unfair advantage because your crew let them get away with fouls.

I still think they're exploiting a gap in the NHFS rules, and I feel comfortable NHFS will fix it next year (shame on them for not doing it this year). Any coach that tries this is just doing his program a disservice, because next year he'll have to teach them a totally new offense.

I plan on approaching this scrimmage with the mindset of making sure they are at the letter of the law, thus making it easier on all concerned when the season opens. I do believe the NFHS will make a direct statement regarding this next year. In the case of the team in my area, it really isn't a matter or learning something new. I've made the case from day 1 that this is not a new offense. It is a new formation. The offense is the same west coast spread that has been around for years. The difference is the numbering and the shift to the line. This coach is a pro at the no huddle spread. All he is doing is adding new formations and shifts. He is not changing his offense and he will not change it next year if the rule changes, he just will have to wear legal numbers.

So we know that A-11 will not be allowed in at least three states. Let's hear from some of the people in those states. Is the A-11 offense illegal for all downs or is it illegal for scrimmage downs where it is obvious that a kick won't be attempted? Are you using the college rule?

If the individual states have not clarified this statement then they have basically stated that the numbering exception is not legal this year. I don't think they wanted to do that so what exactly was said.

You need to clarify NFHS states. So far I only know of NC and the District of Columbia. Texas uses NCAA rules.

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

daggo66, you need to read more forums. The A-11 is illegal in NC, GA, LA, WV and the District of Columbia. There maybe others that we are not aware of.

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? If the team runs straight to the LOS and lines up quickly and snaps the ball to run a fake is that legal or not? It sounds very arbitrary to say these formations could be illegal on all downs.

All of these formations are legal at the NCAA level on 4th down. 48 is the snapper, 32 is at least 7 yards back and 21 is the punter.

87_________34_23_48_25_93__________42
_____86______________________16


____________________32

__________________21




________87_34_23_48_25_93_42
_______________86__16


___________________32

_________________21




87_34_23_________48_________25_93_42



____________86_16__32

_________________21

Here in San Diego, CA we've been told the A-11 is not prohibited by rule. I happen to agree (although I don't like it) and I don't think those states that are outlawing it have a leg to stand on rulewise, but they get to do whatever they want I suppose. For us, we'll officiate to the letter of the law (ie no slack given) regarding shifts, motions, eligibility due to original sets, etc.

wyoming has chimed in
 

the A-11 is illegal in Wyoming. Our state association made the announcement last night.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

still a little confused
 

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.....:confused:

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.

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.

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

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.

Hmmm...
 

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.....:confused:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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. :(

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

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

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

http://web.officiating.com/photos/Base.jpg

This is a somewhat popular punt formation

http://americanfootballmonthly.com/S...t_diagram1.gif

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.

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. :rolleyes:

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. :)

How 'bout that BBR! What a guy!
 

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.

Careful you don't fall off that high horse!
 

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!

Well then.

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

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

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.

Does this mean the terrorists have already won? :)

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.

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???:D Keep digging!!!

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

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.

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! :D

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Peace

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

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.

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.

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

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

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."

One way to deal with this A-11 is to treat it like the NCAA had done in their philosophies this year. That being, trick plays must be PERFECLY legal. Whatever the rules are for a shift in NFHS make sure they follow them 100%. All players must be legally on the line or legally a back. I'm not a "ticky tack" official but with this formation you sort of have to be.

Do we have any officials in this conversation that have actually worked games where the A-11 was used? What difficulties, if any, did you face? Do you have any suggestions that would benefit those of us who might encounter these formations this season?

I will be working a scrimmage on 8/23. I let everyone know how it went.

Robert, you are missing one very important part of the eligibility picture with the A-11. It's not as cut and dried as the old days before numbering requirements. The biggest issue in my mind is that with the exception if a player establishes his position on the line as an ineligible receiver, he remains an ineligible receiver throughout the down. Let's say that A line up with 8 men on the LOS with 2 wide outs on the right. The inside receiver is ineligible. He realizes he was supposed to be off the line, so he now shifts to the backfield. In a normal formation he would be eligible, however since this is a scrimmage kick formation he is now an ineligible receiver regardless of where he lines up.

Our local interpreter reported this week that the A-11 is legal in Ohio. He then started warning us to watch for linemen wearing an eligible number who are covered by an end and therefore ineligible. This made me wonder whether he knows what the A-11 is...

You may have missed an important part of what he was explaining. If that covered lineman, who is wearing an eligible number, steps off the line he remains ineligible throughout the down. In a normal formation if a player is inelgible because they are covered and are wearing an eligible number, steps off the line, they become eligible.

Oh, I know the exception makes it harder than it was back then because you have to keep in mind an initial position and a final position for each of several players. But at least with A-11 you're on notice that that's the basis of the offense, rather than 40+ yrs. ago when a tackle eligible might occur any time as a rare surprise and you didn't notice whether the erstwhile end on that side had lined up sufficiently backward or whatever.

Fed has had a tendency over the years to outlaw plays that had been occurring only rarely, because the officials might not be looking at the right things. With A-11 we have a situation where someone realized that a loophole that was available occasionally, and exploited probably only rarely, could be made available & exploited continuously.

Around 30 years ago (give or take a lot) someone discovered a loophole NCAA had left on altering a rule about a decade earlier. There was no provision to discourage batting forward someone's backward pass unless it went out of bounds. So an ostensible place kick holder tossed the ball into the air and the ostensible kicker made a volleyball serve out of it, followed by a scramble for the ball downfield. I think others were too ashamed to exploit that one, and the loophole was closed for the next season, which was easy because it was just a matter of making a conforming chage they'd forgotten when the original change was made. I don't think Fed's scrimmage kick numbering exception will be as easily disposed of.

Robert

The team that we thought was going to run the A-11 has decided not to.