Thoughts of officals on the A11 offense.

[bisonlj]

As much publicity as it received in the off season and the numbers the creators promoted would use it, I have heard of very few instances. I wonder if that fact will be considered by the committee? They could think...nobody's doing it anyway so why waste our time reviewing the rule? Or...nobody's using it so changing this rule won't really affect that many people; let's get it over with. I just checked out there site and they don't seem to have a lot of teams announcing they are using it. It looks like it will probably die a quiet death. I have to hand it to them for their innovation.

There are probably several other rules that could be exploited like this. I always thought it might be interesting for a coach to try two forward passes behind the LOS when that rule was still in effect. That was probably too risky but I bet most DBs would let up once they saw the first forward pass.

[Mike L]

I'm trying not to.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

They could think...nobody's doing it anyway so why waste our time reviewing the rule?

Historically, that's not the way they have voted. For example, see the rule changes on planned loose ball plays and multiple forward passes. Rarely used by anyone, they got rid of both.

[Rich]

I haven't seen anyone run it this year, nor heard of anyone -- I belong to three different officials' associations.

[trocared]

if the creators of the a11 offense do not make it as coaches, they have wonderful opportunities as tax lawyers. seriously, imho, they have been very creative while staying within the written rules. they have forced all of us, especially the rules committee, to judge the intent of the rule. my $.02...it will not be legal in the future.
cheers,
tro

[Murd]

Originally Posted by trocared

if the creators of the a11 offense do not make it as coaches, they have wonderful opportunities as tax lawyers. seriously, imho, they have been very creative while staying within the written rules. they have forced all of us, especially the rules committee, to judge the intent of the rule. my $.02...it will not be legal in the future.
cheers,
tro

I'm glad I'm retiring as a coach. This offense can change the game into a Australian type of football.

[OverAndBack]

Haven't seen or heard of it yet here in Arizona.

I reckon there will be a review process, but if it's not being used very much, that review process may take longer than it would if it was being used all over the place. Like those other points made above, that doesn't mean they won't address it or close the loophole, they may just not see the urgency in doing it right away if it's not widely used.

[hawk65]

Just curious how many of you have officiated a game with a school using the A-11 or have seen an actual game film as opposed to the grainy internet videos you may have seen?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

There are probably several other rules that could be exploited like this. I always thought it might be interesting for a coach to try two forward passes behind the LOS when that rule was still in effect. That was probably too risky but I bet most DBs would let up once they saw the first forward pass.

My school's varsity did it. Or maybe it was the other team, I forgot. (~40 yrs. ago.)

But that was different. Unlike A-11, it wasn't an unintended byproduct. According to their proceedings, shortly after Fed started making their own football rules instead of using NCAA's, they started looking at things to change. Allowing more than one forward pass per down was argued for and adopted within a few yrs.

The proceedings of those years were interesting for what was proposed & rejected as well as adopted changes. Only a few of the terminology changes were adopted. A proposal to award a TD for DPI in the end zone (or "score zone" if that terminology change had been adopted) never made it.

Robert

[hawk65]

I've had the opportunity to officiate as a flank official for both a varsity and a JV game for Piedmont HS, the originator of this A-11 offense. For what it's worth, I'm sharing some thoughts.

The varsity coach gave us a laminated card before the game illustrating all the various positions they might get into during the game. That was useless because we would never pull it out and look at it during the game nor would we try to mentally equate what we saw with one of the formations on his card.

Only the center was on the line when A first approaches the LOS. The QB is in scrimmage-kick-formation depth usually with another back near him, all the other players are spread out the width of the field and at least 2 yards off the LOS. Upon command, at least 6 others stepped up to the LOS in varying positions across the width of the field. There may also be a shift at this time, or they may shift a second time after this initial step up to the line. They might also send a back in motion after either the first or second shift.

As a flank official, it took a moment to adjust to this new look. Soon, it became routine to simply look to make sure there were no more than 4 in the backfield (easier to count than 7 on the line), identify eligible backs on your side and eligible end man on the line (irregardless of number), then watch for a moment after the snap to make sure only those eligibles went downfield. THIS WAS NOT DIFFICULT TO DO - no more so than conventional formations with shifts and motions.

As crews (both JV and varsity), we enjoyed officiating the games. In some ways, it is MUCH EASIER than some "conventional" offenses: holding stands out like a sore thumb in so much open space; it was easy to keep track of the ball so there should be less likelihood of inadvertent whistles; forward progress was easy to mark in the open field; it was a more entertaining game!

I've done a game where the offense was in a bunch formation for much of the game: line had no splits; QB, FB and Tailback stacked in less than 5 yards depth, HB toe-to-toe next to the FB and lined up behind a guard. They ran the ball into the middle of the line 90% of the time and simply tried a "rugby scrum," push-the-pile-forward, ball control game. It was much more difficult to officiate because it was hard to see who had the ball and to judge forward progress in the mass of bodies -- and, it was BORING!

As for "deception" and "trickery," this was a piece of cake compared to some other offenses I've officiated that use the double-wing belly series, or the "fly" back in motion across the backfield, etc. I'd rather officiate one of these games any day compared to the challenges of some other offenses I've officiated when they are executed by well-coached teams with skilled players!

Defenses will adjust to this very quickly. They'll use zone coverages with some adjustments on the number of rushers, they'll scout and figure out who the real threats on the offense are and man up on those threats if they have the personnel, they'll use man-up on better offensive personnel and zone the field otherwise, they'll rush/blitz the QB and try to overwhelm him before they can be beat on their man-to-man coverages, and they'll do any number of adjustments from their standard defensive schemes, just as they make adjustments for the various offenses they face during the year. In spite of the claims of the coach, it is not a big deal and it does not create a big offensive advantage. It will be interesting to consider the wins/losses and scores Piedmont has had since implementing this offense.

Piedmont won but only barely and they didn't score a lot of points. They won because they made some good plays down the stretch - plays that stood out because of they were good athletic plays, not because they "tricked" or "deceived" the defense with an unconventional offense.

Before passing judgment on whether the NFHS should tweak their rules to prevent this type of innovation, I hope you'll wait for the opportunity to officiate one of these games yourself. And I hope they'll listen to feedback from those officials who have actually officiated one of their games. The consensus from both crews I worked on was it was not difficult and it made for an entertaining game. If you get a chance, I think you'll enjoy it!!

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by hawk65

Before passing judgment on whether the NFHS should tweak their rules to prevent this type of innovation, I hope you'll wait for the opportunity to officiate one of these games yourself. And I hope they'll listen to feedback from those officials who have actually officiated one of their games. The consensus from both crews I worked on was it was not difficult and it made for an entertaining game. If you get a chance, I think you'll enjoy it!!

The reason many are against it is because it takes advantage of the numbering exception in an unintended way. How exciting the games are or how difficult it is to officiate has nothing to do with it.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by hawk65

Before passing judgment on whether the NFHS should tweak their rules to prevent this type of innovation, I hope you'll wait for the opportunity to officiate one of these games yourself. And I hope they'll listen to feedback from those officials who have actually officiated one of their games. The consensus from both crews I worked on was it was not difficult and it made for an entertaining game. If you get a chance, I think you'll enjoy it!!

I have officiated a team that ran that offense and I was not impressed. It was interesting, but it did not make the game more exciting. Actually the team that ran the offense lost big time. The reason is because they figured out the basics of the offense and stopped it. And because of the lack of success of the offense, the defensive side of the team was on the field a long time. The team that ran a conventional offense scored 69 points. Part of the reason is that they kept the defense on the field and the offense (that ran the A-11) only has success in the first half. Granted it might have been exciting, but it was not affective. And it was not really difficult to officiate. But I still see the NF changing the rule because at its core, this offense is taking advantage of a rule that was not intended to be used for this purpose. Who cares how entertaining it is, there are other offenses that are exciting without the A-11.

Peace

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I have officiated a team that ran that offense and I was not impressed. It was interesting, but it did not make the game more exciting. Actually the team that ran the offense lost big time. The reason is because they figured out the basics of the offense and stopped it. And because of the lack of success of the offense, the defensive side of the team was on the field a long time. The team that ran a conventional offense scored 69 points. Part of the reason is that they kept the defense on the field and the offense (that ran the A-11) only has success in the first half. Granted it might have been exciting, but it was not affective. And it was not really difficult to officiate. But I still see the NF changing the rule because at its core, this offense is taking advantage of a rule that was not intended to be used for this purpose. Who cares how entertaining it is, there are other offenses that are exciting without the A-11.

Peace

JRut,

You mention that the winning team scored 69 points and that the losing team lost big time. You did not mention how many points they scored.

I think that the real reason that this team lost was not becaase the A-11 is a poor offense; I think its's because the winning team is vastly a superior team.

We all know that offense wins games; defense wins championships. It seems that the defensive players on the winning team properly adapted to the A-11. They're probably better coached, too.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

JRut,

You mention that the winning team scored 69 points and that the losing team lost big time. You did not mention how many points they scored.

A whopping 21 points. Whoopie!!!!

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

I think that the real reason that this team lost was not becaase the A-11 is a poor offense; I think its's because the winning team is vastly a superior team.

We all know that offense wins games; defense wins championships. It seems that the defensive players on the winning team properly adapted to the A-11. They're probably better coached, too.

That might be true, but you cannot advertise and offense as the next coming and have similar results as before. If the claim is that the game is more wide open, I think you should be able to score more than 21 points in a high school football game. That is just my opinion of course.

Peace

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by hawk65

THIS WAS NOT DIFFICULT TO DO

MUCH EASIER

BORING!

Why all the RANDOM use of CAPITALIZATION and BOLD type?