Thoughts of officals on the A11 offense.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

Don't get snippy with me.

It makes no sense to me that a state that operates under the auspices of a governing body can tell that governing body to go fark itself.

This isn't a constitutional "states rights" issue unless there's some codicil to the NFHS charter that specifically delegates certain things to the states like our Constitution does.

That's what I don't understand because it seems dichotomous to me.

I am not getting snippy with you. I am just telling you how it is. The NF does not have the power that the Federal Government has over states to "keep them in line" with US Government policy. The NF is much more dependent on states to govern and make money than the other way around. And if a state wants to say we do not want to be a member, they could and the only consequence that took place might be that officials do not get rulebooks from them anymore as easily. And that is why Texas is not hurting because they are not NF Football Members. And there are other states that are not NF Members because they decide they want to use rules the NF rules.

In other words, ask yourself what is the NF doing to those states that decide to outlaw this offense? So far not a thing.

Peace

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

It makes no sense to me that a state that operates under the auspices of a governing body can tell that governing body to go fark itself.

If you recall what NFHS stands for, you'll understand that the state associations have to exist prior to and independent of a federation of them.

FED is not a governing body, but rather more of a coordinating body. They certainly have no enforcement powers, possession of which is the hallmark of governance.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: Here's what the Federation rule book says:

Under the Table of Contents on p.11:

"Each state high school association adopting these rules is the sole and exclusive source of binding rules interpretations for contests involving its member schools. Any person having questions about the interpretation of NFHS rules should contact the rules interpreter designated by his or her state high school association. The NFHS is the sole and exclusive source of model interpretations of NFHS rules. State rules interpreters may contact the NFHS for model rules interpretations. No other model rules interpretations should be considered."

And then in Rule 1-7:
"Each state association has the authority to make decisions and provide coverage relative to a number of specific rules and may individually adopt specific coverage relative to the following:" (followed by a list of 16 specific places where the statets are free to establish their own governing rules, like resolving tied games, mercy rules, etc.)

So I have absolutely NO idea to what extent states can adopt their own playing rules.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Bob M.

So I have absolutely NO idea to what extent states can adopt their own playing rules.

States can do whatever they want, since FED has neither the authority nor the power to sanction them. All FED can do is deny a state a voice in the rule-making process, which hardly prevents the state from doing as it wants.

Ohio, for example, has completely different kick coverage from FED. This is a mechanics difference, not a rules difference, but Ohio still lost its seat on the rules committee over this issue. We still use our own kick coverage and FED rules, though.

The mistake lies in thinking of FED as somehow authorizing state associations, rather than the other way round.

[KurtBryan]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I find it interesting that you put more stock in one white hat's view and not another. How transparent that only those that support your view have any credibility.

I echo Rut. Get lost.

Rich, please be kind enough to read my posts, I have made it VERY CLEAR I respect Officials who have differing views about this offense, but I respect all other systems of offense to. Always have and will.

Thank you, KB

[KurtBryan]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Kurt, this has stopped being about the rules along time ago. No one cares about what some unnamed person feels about this offense. I put my name to an article that you and I both were referenced and I do not feel this is even close to the future of football. For one it was hard to run and the team that ran it lost their first 3 games. And the team in question did not even run this offense for his lower level teams. His lower level teams were running a version of their previous offense. The coach already ran the offense in a scrimmage kick formation and he already passed all the time. When he tried to run shifts and motion, his team was so confused they could not move the ball. And as I said before, a fast quick team is going to make it very difficult to play against. If a spread offense is difficult for a team to run, this offense is even more difficult to run because so many people have to do things they would not ordinarily do. And if you think a coach is going to evaluate players based on a offense that is a gimmick and not see how they can fit them into the skill sets they have to teach, then you will have to show me a person that is playing at the major college level that has been in this offense and had success. I can tell you the team I saw, I do not know if anyone on that offense is something special as a player. Running in space is one thing, creating the space is another all together. Sorry Kurt, this sounds like spam when all you are talking about is what people think. I am in sales too and nothing you have said is going to change what people think about this offense or what the NF Committee might do in the future. And you tried to make it seem that everyone on the NF was on board. It is clear by the Chicago Tribune article written about 3 weeks ago that the NF is not completely sold.

Peace

Rut: Yes, I read the article you were quoted in the Chicago Tribune, it was well written and I respect what you said.

It is interesting to learn what other people think the game of football WILL look like 15 - 20 years from now. So..........

Rut...Exactly, WHAT WILL the Game of Football Look like 15 - 20 years from now in your Opinion?

I look forward to reading your thoughts...thanks, KB

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by KurtBryan

Rut...Exactly, WHAT WILL the Game of Football Look like 15 - 20 years from now in your Opinion?

I look forward to reading your thoughts...thanks, KB

If you think it is going to be the A-11 Offense, you are wrong. That might not be around in the way you want to promote it in a year or two. Also it would help if a team has success and gimmicks that do not lead to success will go away.

Peace

[Murd]

Originally Posted by KurtBryan

Rut: Yes, I read the article you were quoted in the Chicago Tribune, it was well written and I respect what you said.

It is interesting to learn what other people think the game of football WILL look like 15 - 20 years from now. So..........

Rut...Exactly, WHAT WILL the Game of Football Look like 15 - 20 years from now in your Opinion?

I look forward to reading your thoughts...thanks, KB

what goes around, comes around, a lot of schools are running out of a spread formation, which is a updated version of the single wing and making a comeback.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Mike L

Because, per rule there cannot be roughing the snapper unless the offense is in a scrimmage kick formation. And you can't be in a scrimmage kick formation unless someone is in position to receive a snap who is at least 7 yds behind the LOS.

But, if the rule is ignored because they are attempting to pass out of the formation rather than kick, I agree we have a problem.

What do you mean, "if the rule is ignored"? "Scrimmage kick formation" is a technical term with a specific definition; it has nothing to do with whether a kick is imminent. Roughing the snapper was put in the rules a few years ago because of the position & action of the snapper when snapping the ball deep, which is the same regardless of whether it's a run, pass, or kick play.

Robert

[Mike L]

And that's what "if the rule is ignored" means. It's the formation that matters, not what they do out of it. Which was sorta the implication of the other poster. Thereby generating, "the problem" comment.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

It's an end run around a rule just as the A-11 is an end run around the numbering exception. The protection is only for a scrimmage kick formation. Running every play out of that formation to avoid having a defender able to shoot up the middle is ludicrous.

First of all, there's nothing about it that prevents a defender's shooting up the middle. He just can't hit the snapper on the way.

But second, did it ever occur to you that there could be other reasons to line up in that formation? And that when the snapper does snap the ball deep, it doesn't matter in terms of his exposure what type of play it's going to be?

If the guy is clearly 7+ yards deep (quick glance, obvious), I'll enforce it, but if it's borderline, I'm not going to penalize it.

Nothing wrong with benefit of the doubt. But it seems like where you should be giving the benefit of the doubt to the defense is in cases where incidental contact with the snapper occurs as a defender tries to shoot by him (or when the contact is more than incidental but results from being deflected into the snapper by an adjacent lineman's block), in cases where the ball is snapped to a "short" man and the defense reacts to a threat in the middle in a way that involves the snapper.

Robert

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Bob M.

So I have absolutely NO idea to what extent states can adopt their own playing rules.

It's really simple -- it depends on whether they want to stay members of the Federation in that sport.

The Federation works for specific sports by democratic centralism. There are official channels that funnel feedback upward to where the decisions are made, and then those decisions are binding downward to the participants. You're allowed to play by Fed rules without being a member of Fed or being a member of a state high school ***'n, or even being of HS age or being in North America, and you're allowed to modify them to your heart's content. A state HS ***'n to be affiliated with Fed in a particular sport has to sanction its own members' games only if played strictly by the current Fed rules.

It works the same way within states. When I was in school, the NYSHSAA played Fed rules for football, but my school wasn't a member of the state ***'n, and we didn't play by Fed football rules. We sometimes played schools that were in the state ***'n for football, and I guess the rules for that game were a matter of advance negotiation. Maybe now some state ***'ns are a closed loop that forbid out-of-***'n play.

Robert

[KurtBryan]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

It's really simple -- it depends on whether they want to stay members of the Federation in that sport.

The Federation works for specific sports by democratic centralism. There are official channels that funnel feedback upward to where the decisions are made, and then those decisions are binding downward to the participants. You're allowed to play by Fed rules without being a member of Fed or being a member of a state high school ***'n, or even being of HS age or being in North America, and you're allowed to modify them to your heart's content. A state HS ***'n to be affiliated with Fed in a particular sport has to sanction its own members' games only if played strictly by the current Fed rules.

It works the same way within states. When I was in school, the NYSHSAA played Fed rules for football, but my school wasn't a member of the state ***'n, and we didn't play by Fed football rules. We sometimes played schools that were in the state ***'n for football, and I guess the rules for that game were a matter of advance negotiation. Maybe now some state ***'ns are a closed loop that forbid out-of-***'n play.

Robert

Robert:

This is the third or fourth reference I have read on this board and others to various types of precedent set by states playing within Fed rules or modified Fed rules, but allowing all types of different brands of football within those states, etc.

In fact, we have been contacted by a couple of big business entities that want to start a new "federation" for small to mid-size schools for football.
Again, we did not call them, THEY called us, etc.

However, right now, I believe there is plenty of room in America within NFHS for various brands of football, so everybody remains happy ---MOST IMPORTANTLY the KIDS!

And I have read some interesting rule modification draft proposals emailed to me from people in favor of keeping A-11, while at the same time preserving traditional football too.

But it is very interesting to see how clearly ALL of us are at a very critical juncture in the history of football.

It is important to respect all opinions, while closely examining how quickly the game is changing due to today's athletes and strategies, and the expanding disparities between levels of publich high schools, and the blossoming of private high schools, many still playing public schools. Except in Texas, where they have Public and Private high school state champions playing under modified NCAA rules.

Regardless, it has become apparent the game is morphing into something so fast and athletic never before seen in the history of the game, respectfully to all of its great players, coaches and officials from years gone by.

* This thread has turned into an excellent discussion.

KB

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

First of all, there's nothing about it that prevents a defender's shooting up the middle. He just can't hit the snapper on the way.

But second, did it ever occur to you that there could be other reasons to line up in that formation? And that when the snapper does snap the ball deep, it doesn't matter in terms of his exposure what type of play it's going to be?

I certainly do understand this.

However, I also have seen teams trying to get a cheap automatic first down by exploiting this rule. QB backs up a bit deeper than usual (about 7 yds instead of the usual shotgun 5) and then want the auto first down when the center is blocked. It's not about safety for them -- those coaches WANT the center to get drilled so they can go from 3rd and long to 1st and 10. And I'm not playing that game. In my judgment in those situations, it's just short of seven, coach, sorry.

I've only seen it 3-4 times since Roughing the Snapper was put into the rules, but each time the emphasis wasn't on safety, it was an attempted "gotcha" moment.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

What do you mean, "if the rule is ignored"? "Scrimmage kick formation" is a technical term with a specific definition; it has nothing to do with whether a kick is imminent. Roughing the snapper was put in the rules a few years ago because of the position & action of the snapper when snapping the ball deep, which is the same regardless of whether it's a run, pass, or kick play.

Robert

It's analogous to the A11 exploitation of the formation/numbering exception rules. It's called "scrimmage kick formation" rather than "long snap formation" for a reason, after all.