Thoughts of officals on the A11 offense.

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by KurtBryan

1. It is NOT true that nearly half of the 48 states have banned the offense. It is 8 states plus D.C., A-11 is Legal in 40 states.

What about the other two? (If Texas is one because they play by NCAA rules, that's fine, but is there another state that does? Or are we leaving Alaska or somebody out?)

Am I the only one who is confused about the "banning" by various states of a particular offensive set that appears to be within the rules of the game? Are they saying, "We just don't want to deal with it, it looks too complicated, la la la la la I am not listening to you la la la la?" And just saying "BOOM. That's it. Case closed. We ban it. Even though it appears there's no real, actual rule strictly against it?"

I know there's nobody really to appeal to, no Supreme Court.

IMHO, if the Fed just closes the loophole on 7-2-5b exception and makes the scrimmage kick formation comply with the other rules on numbering in the interior line (or says it can only be in an obvious punting situation or somesuch), that puts the A11 out of business with a lot less muss and fuss and gives every state something to lean on.

Because as it stands, I can't understand an arbitrary ban by some states and not by others, if the national governing body hasn't (yet) ruled on its illegality.

Maybe it's just me.

[OverAndBack]

BTW, I don't think this is the future of football. There've been tweaks and attempts to game the system since Amos Alonzo Stagg and Walter Camp. They're all just variations on a theme, no matter what some random white hat may think.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

Because as it stands, I can't understand an arbitrary ban by some states and not by others, if the national governing body hasn't (yet) ruled on its illegality.

Maybe it's just me.

It is simple; the NF has no power to tell a state what to do and how to do things. And if the only risk is to lose voting seat, that obviously is not hurting Texas in any way. Why is that hard to understand?

Peace

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It is simple; the NF has no power to tell a state what to do and how to do things. And if the only risk is to lose voting seat, that obviously is not hurting Texas in any way. Why is that hard to understand?

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.

[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.

[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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by KurtBryan

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.

Will you stop with the sales pitch. This is not a critical time in the game more than any other. Rules change all the time and your offense has not revolutionized the game. The Run and Shoot was supposed to revolutionize the game and it is basically gone in the game today. And I do not see teams running out and using your offense. If anything it has not been successful enough to change the game for many. We get it already; you want everyone to like the offense. The problem is that is not the case.

Peace

[TXMike]

Originally Posted by KurtBryan

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.

Scammers do tend to seek out each other

Originally Posted by KurtBryan

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

Huh???? Who said we are at a CRITICAL JUNCTURE in the history of football? Is that just some more self-back slapping you are doing or is there really something going on in football that the rest of us are not aware of???? Do you really think your little scam is that important?

Originally Posted by KurtBryan

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.

And your deliberate attempt to circumvent the rules of the game does more to DISHONOR all those from years gone by than your pathetic little statement of "respect" does to honor them.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by KurtBryan

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

Can I nominate that as "most self-important statement of the season"?