|
Quote:
|
The way you abuse the numbering exception is not what was intended by the rule. I have no problem with your offense if you would have 5 interior guys numbered 50-79. Then YES, your offense would be innovative.
Be sure to have a "Plan B" for 2009 since I'm going to venture a guess that the NFHS will outlaw this offense. Also, your claim that NFHS reduces injury is incredibly erroneous. Actually, the worst injuries I've seen is from receivers crossing the middle and a DB taking his head off (which your offense actually INCREASES the chances of). Additionally, your A-11 offense will not prepare your players for the next level what so ever (except MAYBE your WR's just because they've caught so many passes). No college runs a system like this, so you will not have RB's who know how to read blocks or hit a hole, no QB's who know how to read coverages that apply to REAL offenses, no TE's who won't be able to block a soul, and obviously no O-Linemen. In fact, your lack of 0-Linemen will affect the number of D-linemen you have as well. I have no idea how you stop the run when all of your front 7 players on defense are less than 200lbs. Your claims for keeping the offense are incredibly weak. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
misc
Patton and Mbyron:
Humbly, nothing could be further from the truth. And, now to the good things: Dear Officials: Piedmont earned the win today, 45 - 30 to move to 3-3 overall, and 2 -1 in league, vs. a very athletic team. It was a gutty win, and our kids executed the offense very well ESPN was here this week, and covered our game today. It is becoming very clear ESPN believes the A-11 IS the future of many styles of football, and with all of the thousands of variables OTHER coaches come up with using A-11, it has become a "Runaway Train"..........in a good way. Exciting, fun, wide open and varied from team to team, etc. They were kind enough to let us know (without telling us who) although those names will be released in the ESPN piece, that quite a few NFL people believe the game MUST evolve more and more LIKE the many forms the A-11 can take, due to these reasons: 1. Safety (the game is safer because many "one on one" islands are created, which results in less gang tackling, inadvertent pile ups which equals less blown out knees and ankles, and less physical mismatches 2. Speed: The game must adapt to the BEST athletes at the Pro Level, always has and will 3. Athleticism of the players 4. Varied spread schemes 5. Fans want excitement Have a good night. KB |
I don't know what FED will do in the off-season, and neither does ESPN, notwithstanding obsequious rumors about what unnamed NFL sources might or might not desire. So few HS football players go on to the NFL, their desires can't matter much for FED.
You can't lobby me with your arguments, since I don't have a vote. And your lobbying efforts here are tiresome. I think that FED will take your arguments seriously, but that at the end of the day they will close the loophole. Here's why I think so. Your arguments are quite tendentious: 1. Safety: no evidence -- not even anecdotal -- supports the claim that the A-11 is safer. Safety IS a concern for FED, but they don't base their decisions on armchair arguments like yours. 2. Speed: the A-11 makes players no faster, and to the extent that it demands more fast players it will decrease participation among larger student athletes, a traditional population of football players. 3. Athleticism: the A-11 makes players no more athletic, and to the extent that it demands more athletic players it will decrease participation. 4. Varied spread formations: such formations are otherwise illegal, and have no intrinsic value that would warrant legitimizing the A-11. 5. Fans want excitement: fans might also like it if wild tigers were released onto the field, but that's not a good reason for FED to allow it. Again, no statistical evidence supports the claim that fans in general (as opposed to your fans) find the A-11 more exciting. On the other hand, the arguments against the A-11 are compelling: 1. OOPS offense: The entire offense is a fluke, based on a loophole in the rules that is easily fixed and would make football at every level more consistent. 2. No rationale: No other level of football uses or could use the formation. FED has a different rule set, but the differences are based on player safety, increased participation, and uniformity of officiating, none of which supports allowing the A-11. Indeed, they probably require banning it. 3. Already banned: A significant number of states has already banned the A-11, and their representatives at FED will surely ask FED to disallow it. So, as I say, it would be rash to renew the contract on that domain name... |
Quote:
|
not so
Dear Mbyron:
Not so again, and lastly, when we submitted everything for review, we listed in detail ALL of the rules, interpretations and also list of items that are Tangible: code of ethics, travesty of the game, on and on, etc. Not only was everything discussed with us in great detail PRIOR to approval, but after the season was over, we followed up Fed and CIF, reviewing the FED and CIF Mission Statement item by item, for Fed and CIF, and how and why this new offensive system was GREAT for the kids and the game. Again, you say our side's position is tiresome.........humbly so is yours. Lastly, I did not say ESPN will be using unnamed sources in the NFL for their piece, I said, when their piece comes out, those NFL people WILL be on record. There is plenty of room in America for various brands of football. Have an excellent weekend officials. KB:) |
And once again the vampire rises from the crypt, just in time for Halloween
Where'd I put my garlic and wolf's bane?:)
:cool: |
Quote:
In short, and with all due respect to the work you've put in on this, the fact that ESPN believes something is far from a ringing endorsement in my book. ESPN is about making sure you don't ever go anywhere else for information and making money. That's it. End of list. |
Quote:
A - To prevent players from having to change jersey numbers during scrimmage kicks downs. B - To allow a team to not have anyone numbered 50-79 on the field when they have no intentions of making a scrimmage kick during the down. |
Quote:
Respectfully, Mr. Official.... that questioned HAS been answered a zillion times, and NOW to the Other question that a loud minority refuses to reply to: "How is it possible that many small to mid-size schools have embraced the A-11 Offense, and have made it clear it gives their kids a TAD bit better of a fighting chance vs. larger teams, and that Most offcials who have ACTUALLY WORKED games involving A-11 teams have made it clear IT IS workable by their crews, and IT IS NOT a travesty of the game or unsportsmanlike?" * Humbly, including Pennsylvania NFHS Rules Committee Member, Mr. Brad Cashman in his interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer last week... With GREAT respect to ALL opinions, it is very clear that there is Plenty of room in America for more than one brand of football that is GOOD FOR THE KIDS. PS - Congrats to Riverside-Brookfield (IL), a first-year A-11 team, for shattering the single game passing record with 597 yds. passing, 9 TD passes in one game. Most Sincerely, KB :) |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Also, don't use the "fighting chance" argument against big schools. That's what classifications are for. When I played, we were the smallest school in our classification for the whole state and we never finished worse than 7-2 playing in one of the toughest conferences in the state, and we didn't abuse the numbering exception to do so.
|
Refbuz
Thanks for your heads up interpretation. I read the rule book a few times a year, and I'm sure I have read this 'He must be positioned on the line of scrimmage and between the end players on the line of scrimmage' about the original position of the player, but I don't think it ever sunk in before. I had always just remembered that he would stay inelligible. Learning these finer details (nuances) are a real challenge, especially after you are comfortable with things. I'm glad the board is here to keep expanding our awareness! |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:05am. |