Thoughts of officals on the A11 offense.
 

will it be legal next yr in HSFB?

no
 

most likely not..

As I posted in another thread, I'm predicting that the issue will come up before the rules committee this off-season. They will consider whether the A-11 is "good for football," whatever that means to the committee members.

They will also consider the fact that no other level of football allows the A-11, and so it doesn't conform to what most people expect from the game. For this reason, I believe that they will rewrite the numbering exception so that it more closely resembles the NCAA rule.

And that will be the end of the A-11.

also
 

then throw into the mix that some states have already instructed officials to not allow it, and you have a pretty strong case that when a vote occurs it will be to do whatever it takes to not allow it. The easiest route here is as mr byron said to rewrite that particular area of the rule book.

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.

Thoughts of officals on the A11 offense?
 

I'm trying not to.

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.

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

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.

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.

Have you officiated a game with the A-11?
 

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?

We had a team who thought they were using it with the QB under center or in a normal shotgun and #44 at RG. After 2 back-to-back illegal formation penalties, the HC requested a conference. He naturally said "We've been doing it all year and haven't been penalized." We showed him the 7 yard requirement in the rules book and #44 changed shirts.

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

Been there, done that
 

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!!

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.

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.

A whopping 21 points. Whoopie!!!!

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

Why all the RANDOM use of CAPITALIZATION and BOLD type?

touching base after few weeks of the season
 

Hello Officials:

It has been interesting to see the various teams using the A-11, and there are others out there using various packages of it that we have not seen video of, etc.

Just a sampling of teams to note below using the offense:

Horizon Christian, OR
Riverside Brookfield, IL
Saddleback Valley, CA
Toullahoma, TN
LA Jordan, CA
Trimble County, KY
Saguaro High, AZ...I am friends with their OC and he is installing packages of it to use over the next several weeks.

* What is more important than what teams are using it, is the simple fact that some teams are having success with it, Saddleback is undefeated for example, while other teams are struggling trying to learn the system. It's football and those things happen with every system, and of course the level of talent that particular season makes a big difference too.

It is true the A-11 does Not give the offense an unfair advantage, and it is true that the A-11 is able to be officiated properly. Both of those facts have been well documented by teams losing games and also the testimonies of Officials now over several parts of the USA making it very clear the games involving teams using the A-11 are very workable indeed.

This past week, NPR did its second feature on the A-11, and the fact that it gives the smaller to mid-size schools a tad bit better of a fighting chance, etc. It was interesting to note however...respectfully, the counter argument put forth by the North Carolina State Rules Interpreter, and Appalachian State Alum used the example of Appalachian State defeating Michigan last year using the spread offense. And he thought it was a better example of how teams should compete on offense, and that it can lead to upsets.

OK...that is fine but there are some Major Holes in that type of reasoning put forth by the NC guy:

a. Appalachian State is a University, and they can Legally Recruit kids from all over the USA to fit their system.

b. However, the thousands of schools like Piedmont High School nationwide are Coed, PUBLIC schools and they Cannot recruit kids from anywhere.

Comparing college vs. high school is totally missing the point of helping to keep the game of high school football somewhat equitable and competitve, giving all teams, small, medium and big a fighting chance.

Not only is the A-11 Not hurting anybody, it offers teams who might need it a tad bit more of a fighting chance.

Sincerely,

KB

I think it is pretty much an accepted fact that the A-11 gives the offense an unfair advantage by not having 5 players numbed 50-79. I know you try to ignore that as you never answer the question asked of you multiple times of what is the purpose of the numbering exception.

Small teams do not get a fighting chance against big teams. If your school is to small to hang with the big schools then stop playing them.

How about getting stronger and faster or better executing your strategies instead of resorting to trickery and exploiting loopholes in the rules to get more of a fighting chance?

What exactly is a "fighting chance," and where in the rules does it say that each team shall have one?

What is the purpose of the player numbering rule which is so fundamental that it is included in the HS, college, and NFL rulebooks??

You must really think we are ignorant. Do you honestly (assuming you know what that means) believe that any of us for a second thinks that is a "sample" instead of the entire list??? If you had more schools suckered in you would have listed them.

You can say it is a "fact" that the A-11 does not give an unfair advantage but that does not make it a fact. It goes back to the fundamental question which you continue to ignore because to address it you would have to concede your "fact" is bogus.

NPR...now there is a source for good, reliable, info on football. Most of the weenies there hate organized sports because organized sports have winners and losers.

Have you given any thought to what you will be doing next year at this time when you are a piece of forgotten history?

Sit Tight TX Mike...more coming, and thank you
 

TX Mike:

Appreciate the nasty words and immature and repetitive statements and mistruths you make without skipping a beat.

Lots of fun and interesting teams putting their own spin on the A-11 offense, some winning games and others losing games. It happens.

We are stockpiling various videos and DVD's from coaches who have sent us their videos and clips, and we are getting ready to launch our first version of Top Ten A-11 Plays of the Week nationwide next week...but again, keep up the good work on your end.

KB

Enjoy your year exploiting a loophole in the rules. It will be closed. Haven't seen it yet on the field, but I've told my crew to be super-sticklers on formation/shift/motion rules if we ever do. In other words, if you wish to exploit this loophole, you better do it PERFECTLY.

While I appreciate things that simplify the officiating experience, if you're asking, I'd just as soon have you do nothing but run all game and never kick because there's less running. :D

RichMSN,
that's the way it's going to be around our parts as well. The play, as described by Hawk65, will generate a formation foul here because initial positioning of everyone but the center is in the backfield.
We have one school down here running it. So far they are 1-3.

Please go pitch your little silly offense somewhere else. Honestly no one here cares what you think the offense is going to do in the future. Actually, it is likely not to have much future. For one I have not seen much success with teams that have used it. The team I had earlier this year got killed when they played good non-conference teams. They might only make the playoffs because they are members of a conference that plays everyone twice. They probably are in the worst conference in their division in the state. I would not be surprised if they get rid of the offense next year not only as a team, but the rules committee. But Kurt it is time to go away. Your stay is becoming less and less welcome if all you are going to do is pitch a silly loophole in the rules.

Peace

I think, as I've said, that it's more probable than not that FED will rewrite the numbering exception this off-season. If they do not, however, expect more and more states to simply ban the A-11 outright.

My sense is that about a dozen do so now, and I wouldn't be surprised to see that number double next season (including Ohio). But, as I say, I expect that FED will be in front on this issue, despite lobbying from the Friends of the A-11™, and make further action by state associations unnecessary.

Doesn't the fact that you are putting this out sort of signify that it isn't within the realm of the rest of the football world. If the A-11 has to have it's own top ten plays, instead of making the list with the rest of the world, it says it isn't real football. Just like in order for it to exist it has to have a special exception, it now has to have a special top 10...hmmmmmmm

We had one school a few years ago that tried exploiting the "roughing the snapper" rule on a crucial play by lining the QB 7 yards deep at the snap. No flag.

I told him he'd better protect himself because it appeared to me the QB was only 6.5 yards deep.

feedback
 

Dear Officials:

It is OK if we are putting out a highlight show featuring various teams using the offense...no big deal, it is fun, and the kids love it.

It is also OK if some of you guys do not like the offense, many more do, respectfully.

We had a very solid officiating crew work our game when we went to Southern California to play Laguna Beach. They officiated the game well, made some good calls and things went smoothly.

Prior to the game in my pre-game chat on the field with all of the officials, the sincere gentleman wearing the White Hat that night made it clear that football like the A-11 IS the game's future. Those are his words, not yours truly. Again, just another experienced Official who sees and understands where football is headed, and has made it clear to us in words or writing.

There is plenty of room in America for traditional football and also new brands of football, and I love them all, and respect them all.

Have a great day.

KB

Dear Coach,

This is not a fan site. We do not care what plays are in the top 10 or 100. This is a site for officials. We have discussed your offense extensively and the fact you keep pushing it has brought many states to outlaw it and the NF will likely do the same. This is not about tradition verse new age. This is about rules that have loopholes and are almost always closed to either clarify or disallow certain actions. This is why rules committees change rules all the time in all sports. And if you look at the tone of the country and the NF committee, what one White Hat thinks is not going to change the reality. Almost half the country has outlawed the offense already and states that use NCAA rules will not be allow this offense either. I do not see the NCAA throwing out their rules (or the NFL) to make this offense acceptable. And I seriously doubt that many schools are going to run an offense that might make their kids non-recruitable to other levels because they have not worked a more conventional offense. Nice try, now it is time for you to go away. Honestly this is starting to sound like a bunch of spam than a solid discussion about a silly offense.

Peace

Thanks, Rut, and I have posted other questions on officiating topics and/or replied to many on this board and others, etc.

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.

2. Recruiting of Kids: It is Not true the A-11 hurts kids chances of playing collegiate football. The Coaches who talk to us, LIKE the fact they see kids playing in space (most college teams are spread out now), because it gives them a chance to gauge the kid's speed, quickness, agility, strength and reaction time, because most of the players are easy to see, etc.

3. This is an excellent forum about many officiating issues on several threads, and No this is Not spam. I am not the one who brought it up, but it is important to keep the truth out there, when other people deliberately spread mistruths.

4. Like was said, earlier...there is PLENTY of room in America for traditional wonderful football, and new cutting edge brands of football as well.

Have a great week, and thank you.

KB

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.

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

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.

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.

And yet not one fact to support YOUR statements. Where are the other 992 teams that are supposedly using this?

And the only question I care about hearing YOU answer..... what is the purpose of the player numbering rule?

If you do not care to answer that then go try to kick someone else's shins

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

What was the roughing the snapper rule adopted for? It's for the snapper, isn't it? Then why do you care whether the player getting the snap was a kicker or passer? The effect on the snapper is the same.

Robert

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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

Interesting
 

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

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.

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.

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

Rich, interesting take too. We have now played 14 games in the A-11, and have not received one roughing the snapper call vs. the other team's defense. Going into the games, we HOPE our Center does not get cheap shotted or accidentally hurt due to roughing.

The opposing coaches know the rules, and I have not seen anybody get penalized for it, which is a good thing.

KB

I gotta wonder why any "big business" types would be interested in this at all. NCAA, this offense is dead. NFL, this offense is dead. Attempts to compete with the NFL, fail every time. What business opportunities are there in HS ball outside of maybe Texas?
Let's face the facts, this is nothing more than taking advantage of a rule exception that maybe allows a school with a small student base to compete against a bigger school. That's it, despite the attempts at all the crap hyping it as "more fun", "officials love/endorse it", "innovation", "future of the game".

So you interpet the rules the way you think they should be interpeted? Nice.

Yup. Sue me.

Same as when I tell an end to back up a step and when I don't penalize every little flinch. It's called "judgment" or "understanding the spirit of the rule."

Scammers do tend to seek out each other

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?

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.

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

Then there should be some way for the officials to signal pre-snap to the other team that it's a scrimmage kick formation.

Of course I blame the rules makers at NCAA & Fed for this. I wrote about this a while ago at rec.sport.officiating, not sure about here. The rule should not reference the formation, but rather the position of the snapper's head.

BTW, there are some leagues for players below a certain age that require the snapper to snap with head up. I'm pretty sure they're the same ones that don't have normal live scrimmage kick plays.

Robert

The same reason NCAA & NFL rules now reference "normal tackle position" -- they needed a name to describe common practice. But they did it without any thought of requiring a team to snapping from "scrimmage kick formation" to kick.

Robert

Not every time. There was the AFL.

Part of it is an officiating challenge. When it's 4th down and an obvious kicking situation, we are prepared for the numbering exception and the snapper protection. Our umpire calls out loudly to the players and the officials. (An aside: It's bad form to say "Stay off the snapper" on a field with adolescent boys (and officials).)

If a coach told me in the pregame they did this, I would make the other team aware so they could stay off. But no awareness. The last time this happened, they just dropped the QB back almost 7 yards somewhere between 6 and 8 yards) and then tried the whole "gotcha" thing afterwards.