Scrimmage Kick Numbering Exception
 

Formation like this:

#3 and #5 are in the guard/center gap and #24 is in scrimmage kick formation.

Does the exception apply? (I believe it does)

Can the center (#64) direct snap to to #3 or #5 and will the exception apply? (I believe it still does)

My crew is having a discussion and we are looking for other opinions.

Thanks in advance.

The exception applies due to the formation, not who the ball is snapped to. This is legal.

What Walt said. Plus I would like to just throw out a reminder that 47 is going to be ineligible if there is a shift and he becomes the end of the line or a back.

Are 3 and 5 on the line in this instance?

Can you legally snap to someone who's not a back? (I don't have my rulebook with me.)

Nope, they were backs.

So #17 is the one taking advantage of the exception, then, right? He's the fifth guy? What #3 and #5 are doing isn't relevant, is it?

Or #47 or #82.

Isn't 47 considered to be the one taking advantage of the exception since he is positioned as an interior lineman?

7-2-5b: "At the snap, at least five A players on the line of scrimmage must be numbered 50-79."
Exception: "When A shifts into a scrimmage kick formation any A player numbered 1-49 or 80-99 may take the position of any A player numbered 50-79. A player in the game under this exception must assume an initial position on his line of scrimmage between the ends and he remains an ineligible forward-pass receiver during that down unless the pass is touched by B (7-5-6b)."

I guess you're correct. :)

The ends in this instance are 17 and 82, my bad. So it's 47 who's taking advantage of the exception, as he's the only one of the five guys between the ends who doesn't have a number 50-79.

Which still makes 3 and 5 irrelevant as they're backs and not linemen.

I am guessing you are asking if #3 and #5 are in position to receive the snap?

The rule is that there must be a player seven yards deep and in position to receive the long snap with no player in position to receive a "hand-to-hand" snap from between the snappers legs. The formation as shown is a scrimmage kick formation.

What happens if they shift from this:
to this:


Who's looking for what here? Do responsibilities change going from a 5-man game to a 7-man game?

on saturday
 

we have an illegal formation...live ball 5 yds previous spot

I take it you are talking about NCAA rules. What makes this formation illegal in NCAA?

Because 47 is using the numbering exception, you cannot shift to make him an eligible receiver once the center has touched, or simulated touching the ball. The center touching the ball is what locks in eligibility on scrimmage kicks. (1-4-2-b)

Is there anything that prevents this shift from being legal on Friday nights?

There was no shift in the original example, was there?

for NFHS, the only thing the shift has done is #17 becomes ineligible by position. #47 remains ineligible due to initial position. So trying to shift around like this can only result in fewer eligible receivers for A.

No. Merely bringing a "what-if" to the discussion.

Thanks refbuz. I'm just starting to learn NCAA rules (moving to Texas next year) so I am asking questions where I can. :)

This is my 1st year in college, its not that bad, I think that enforcements are relatively easier, it just takes more concentration to not kick an enforcement that confuses the 2.

It turns out that we just discussed the rule a couple weeks ago. That is the main reason that I know it.

In NF rules, the formation is legal after the shift. However, #47 remains inelligible.

Refbuz - I'm not sure why you have called this shift example as an illegal formation.
The shift has made #17 inelligible, and #47 stays inelligible, but as long as he stays on the line he is still just a lineman.
I don't remember anything about the last man on the line having a requirement to be an elligible receiver as your post implies.

Whould you really flag this at the snap as illegal formation? Or just keep an eye on #47 since he was inelligible by rule even if not by position?

Just want to get full clarification.

I'm an Umpire, so I can say with reasonable certainty that a formation foul will NEVER be my foul, but whether it is a foul or not depends on the rules being used.

With NCAA rules it's a foul (1-4-2(b)/A.R. 1-4-2 IV/V).

In NFHS it is not a foul, as K's "penalty" for the shift is losing an eligible receiver.

I merely asked IF they shift who's LOOKING FOR WHAT.

I think that we can all agree that if something messed up is gonna happen during a game, its gonna happen on a punt.

The point of my post was to get some input to see who's got 47 to make sure that he's not going downfield on fakes or if it breaks down. In HS, he is inelligible and remains that way, but who is looking for it?

What if they shift, run a fake, and pass it to 47. He catches a pass and advances for a TD.

Who's responsibility is it to make sure that 47 doesn't go downfield and catch the game changing TD? Is it solely the umpire's call? Is there help from the wings? Does the number of officials on the field change who would catch that?

That's a train-wreck that we HAVE to catch.

It's an easy foul to get if 47 is the long-snapper and goes downfield and catches or doesn't catch the ball. Based on where 47 is lined up in this formation that call is not as easy to make.

This is kinda the direction i was looking to go.

In a college game? I would absolutely expect the wings to throw it because it is a foul, not in a HS game though.

I hope that you got it.

The A-11 has now hit the mainstream media -- that should get FED's attention.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/sp...17offense.html

Okay, tell me if I'm wrong:

http://www.kenn.com/images/a11_offense.jpg

Seven players on the LOS are 1-7 (the numbers in the schematic, not their jersey numbers, which we can't discern)
Eligible receivers have yellow dots (two guys on the end of the line and the three backs - technically I suppose the quarterback could be an eligible receiver as well?)
Ineligible receivers have red dots.
We don't know at what point this photo was taken, but if we presume this is everybody's initial positions, those are the eligibles, correct?

Doesn't seem that complicated. The spreading out of the formation makes it look funky, but they have seven guys on the line, and anybody between the ends who is numbered 1-49 or 80-99 can take the place of someone numbered 50-79 as there is a player seven yards behind the snapper ready to receive the snap. Is that correct?

Simple fixes that put the A11 guy out of business: remove the exception, and say you must have five guys between the ends numbered 50-79, period. Or that the scrimmage kick formation that triggers the exception can only be used on fourth down or in an obvious punting situation (start the debate about "obvious punting situation,").

Here are the scores from Piedmont High School games - running the revolutionary A-11 offense.

9/06/08 @ Drake L, 7-21
9/12/08 vs. Stallworth L, 34-61
9/20/08 @ Laguna Beach W, 17-15
10/03/08 vs. St. Mary’s W, 35-14
10/10/08 vs. Encinal L, 18-39

Wow – 111 points in five games. No other offense could possibly put up those kinds of numbers.:cool:

Seems like Piedmont could spend more time working on DEFENSE, too.

Next up: the B11 defense.

(CANADIAN RULING: http://www.vitaminstoday.com.au/images/b12.jpg)

The quotes by the "innovator" of this mess are laughable at best. And what happened to all those officials he claimed would be singing the praises of his mess in this piece?
And finally, in our area the quoted "only the center is on the line, everyone else is back and then 6 comes to the line" generates a formation violation. Initial positioning is 10 in the backfield, therefore violating the numbering exception rule.

feedback
 

Dear Officials:

Thanks for following the Highlanders so closely, and in order to paint a realistic picture of how our team and some of the others are doing around the country nationwide running the A-11 Offense, please read below, and you guys can now watch the first A-11 Offense Top Ten Plays of the Week from teams around the nation at www.A11Offense.com

Regarding some officials opinions about the A-11 definitely being able to be officiated properly, please read the Philadelphia Inquirer's article quoting Pennsylvania NFHS member, Brad Cashman, very favorable indeed for teams needing to use the A-11, etc.

Please take a look at some of the schools using the A-11 throughout various parts of the country, and then we’ll examine what they are doing with it, and how they are doing:

Piedmont High - CA, Saddleback Valley Christian - CA, Trimble County - KY, Madison County - AL, Mission SF - CA, Riverside-Brookfield - IL, Horizon Christian - OR, Gar-Pal - WA, Tullahoma - TN, Arvada-West, CO, and American School – Japan.

Piedmont is 2 – 3 overall and has expanded it’s A-11 scheme beyond its initial season of use in 2007 to employ more motion, shotgun zone fly concepts, leads, counters and waggles. The Highlanders have hung tough with two outstanding football teams loaded with Division 1A talent: Bishop Stallworth and Encinal, powerhouse football teams that defeated Piedmont.

Saddleback Valley Christian, CA (SVCS): The Warriors are 5 – 0, and have incredible team speed but not much size. Their A-11 Offense is thrilling to watch and sometimes their players are moving at such a rapid rate, it appears as if the actual video speed is on fast-forward. In addition to the base system of the A-11, SVCS has incorporated massive amounts of motion, reverses and sweeps, again everything being executed in hyper-drive.

Madison County, AL: Madison is 6 – 0 using various A-11 packages to let their talented players operate in wide-open space scattered about the field. Their precision passing game is worthy to note.

Mission – SF: The Bears are 4 – 2, with remarkably gifted athletes in a few key positions, such as RB and two of the WR spots. For the first time in more than 45 years, the Bears have chance to compete for the San Francisco AAA title, something that would be a tremendous accomplishment for a school that almost tanked its football program five years ago.

Riverside-Brookfield, IL: The Bulldogs are hot, after dropping their first 3 games of the season, they are rolling after four straight wins, and in sole possession of 1st place in their Metro Suburban conference at 2 – 0 in league. The Bulldogs SUPER spread out, “pass until hell freezes over” offense is a thing of beauty to behold when clicking on all cylinders.

Trimble County, KY: The Raiders are struggling after having won their opener. Their QB is a physical workhouse type of athlete who rushed for over 200 yards in one game in their trapping, jet sweep and counter trey A-11 system. However, their team is severely overmatched talent-wise, and a few heartbreaking losses have helped to make this a tough season. Hopefully, Trimble will catch a few breaks in their last 4 games of the season.

Arvada-West, CO: They are 5 - 2 overall, and after trailing rival powerhouse Pomona 10 - 0, Arvada changed things up and went to their own version of the A-11 offense, and scored 23 points to finally win the game.

Horizon Christian, OR: Horizon is 2-3 overall, not bad considering they are very young across the board talent wise. Horizon utilizes a lot of “run and shoot” principles in their system, and with each game their youthful team gains valuable experience.

Gar-Pal, WA: Gar-Pal used their own version of Bubble Screen and Fake Bubble Screen in the A-11 to get a come from behind win recently when pretty much everything else in their traditional offense was struggling. Utilizing some aspects of the A-11 helped them earn the victory, and now they are planning on implementing much more A-11.

Tullahoma, TN: The Wildcats are 5-2 overall and use a punishing running game in their own version of the A-11. Their ferocious attack featuring leads, counters and draws is a force to be reckoned with.
American School in Japan (ASIJ): They are 3-2, having lost some tough games, and earned a few hard fought victories. Their detailed and precise passing attack is worthy of mention, as is their movement passing game.

As can be witnessed by a sampling of a few teams using the A-11, and as is the case with teams using any type of offensive system, some A-11 teams are winning games, and some of those teams are not. Winning enough games depends upon: strength of schedule, talent, coaching, injuries, weather and the amount of bad breaks a team must overcome during each game and the season. Sometimes things go your way…and sometimes they don’t.

Does the A-11 Offense have a place in the future of high school football & beyond?

Yes, the sheer amount of small to mid-size high schools nationwide that can benefit by having the option of using the A-11 is undeniable. Since our coaching staff decided to share everything we developed and learned about the A-11 after the 2007 season, we have been inundated with phone calls and emails from thousands of coaches worldwide who have been searching for a better way to help make their smaller squads more competitive vs. larger foes, and the A-11 does just that.

The A-11 simply gives the smaller schools more of a fighting chance to compete. And, the A-11 greatly reduces injuries to the players, because they are more spread out across the field of play – resulting in less gang tackling and horrific pile-ups, where most of the severe injuries occur in football.

With testimonies of officials nationwide well documented on this web site and others, and in articles posted and forthcoming that the A-11 is indeed workable, and with smaller schools now given an opportunity to be even more competitive and safer when utilizing the A-11, it has become incredibly clear in rapid sense that the A-11 is here to stay.

What does that mean for the future of high school football for NFHS schools?

The A-11 meets and/or exceeds all of the criteria listed in the NFHS rules book and the NFHS mission statement. In reality, there is no need for the powers-that-be to try and outlaw the A-11 Offense for all of the reasons listed in this essay and others.

In fact, an even stronger case could be made for the NFHS to either:

1. Change nothing, because the A-11 has proven to be beneficial for the kids

2. Create a new Federation or Exception within NFHS for the A-11 Offense


As Always, your opinions and respectful comments are appreciated.

Have a great weekend,

KB

What will you do next year when the NCAA rule is included in the NFHS rule book? Find some other loophole to exploit?

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.

For the next few weeks, yes (at least in the states that have not ruled it illegal), but next year I predict it will be forgotten.

And what PROOF do you have on this statement. Sounds like another sales pitch to me. In my opinion, it increases the chance of injury due to the spread formation and the possibilities of "crackback" blocks. Horrific pile-ups?? That really sounds more like a salesman than a football coach. :rolleyes:

If you have testomonies from 10 officials out of the 50,000 (i'm guessing here) nationwide, that's .02%. That's bordering on Bush's approval rating, and far from the majority. ;)

It means another rule change. :D

How exactly does it exceed?? :confused:

Again, it has proven nothing and won't be around long enough to ever prove anything. The numbering exception was written for a reason, and this ain't it. :p

Probably won't need that domain name after next year.

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...

Thanks. Nothing like a good laugh after a morning of raking leaves.

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:

ESPN believes that things like "Titletown USA" are the future of sports television coverage.

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.

Well if everyone else's position is tiresome then I guess it must finally be time for you to answer the question of what the purpose of the numbering exception is? Since it is pretty hard for you to come up with the answer I will give you a a few options:

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.

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 :)

Really? I must have missed it. I've read your posts on here as well as Refstripes and many times you have ignored the question. Could you post a link to the post in which you answered the question? It would probably take less time to just write 'A' or 'B' as the answer to the question than to go find the link. Either way I am interested in hearing your response.

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!