When do the new rules come out? February? April? I would like to start counting the days... :rolleyes:

As for both sides of the issue, "This too shall pass (no pun intended)"

For one, I'd consider it a challenge to officiate. And one of the reasons I officiate is the challenge.

Happy Thanksgiving to all.

reality check
 

It is very interesting to note, that after the A-11 was given the Green Light by the powers-that-be, the concerns of those powers-that-be in terms of things to be watched for by them were:

1. Can it be properly Officiated? (Answer: Yes, by many Officials who have actually worked A-11 games, and of course the quote from Mr. Brad Cashman, Chairman of the NFHS Rules Committee making it clear the offense can be properly officiated).

2. Does it give the Offense an unfair advantage? (Answer: No, as evidenced by the teams who did not do well in the A-11, with other teams doing OK, and of course some A-11 teams making the Playoffs), just like with other systems of offense).

* The fact that the A-11 has helped to keep the players even safer as evidenced by Piedmont's 22 games in the A-11 with no major injuries, along with other teams now putting together their files with positive results in terms of less injuries to their players, is a HUGE, HUGE benefit that WILL NOT be ignored by the powers-that-be, etc.

Many people have benefited from this new style of offense, but in Reality, nobody has lost a thing.

Sincerely,

KB:)

Yes somethng has been lost although I doubt you can understand it. The integrity of the game is lost with this ridiculousness. Your deliberate attempt to circumvent what you know to be the spirit and intent of the numbering exception rule puts you in that miniscule minority of people who can't follow the rules as they wer emeant to be followed. Furthermore, by marketing this so well to others you have co-opted them into your unethical ways.

Again, not that I expect an answer, but what the heck,,,,What is the spirit and intent of the numbering exception rule?

If you respect all opinions, then why are you YELLING at a poster who disagrees with you?

Empirical evidence with nothing scientific to back it up. I could probably find dozens of local schools who haven't suffered a serious injury over the previous two seasons.

The survey is wanting our opinions about adding NCAA rules; the 'horse collar' penalty, a visible play clock, a 40/25 clock, no LoD on OPI, ending A-11, no free kick after fair catch, B can earn a 2-pt. conversion on A's turnover during PAT, fouls by offense enforced at PS.

Apparently, helmets coming off the runner is a big problem. Who knew.

Okay, sure, would be great but expensive, whatever you want, what is LoD?, fine, please don't, why bother? and okay, fine.

There. Sorted. :D

I think the question was about allowing A to pick up a blocked PAT kick and run it in for 2 points. I don't think they are wanting to go the college route on this (yet)

Let's hope not. That has to be the most convoluted of all differences between the codes. Consider than the concept of a PAT is that the team that has scored a TD (only a TD) is rewarded with the opportunity to "try" and add another point, by meeting certain conditions.

The defense has not earned any reward opportunity, other than the fact they have the opportunity to prevent the scoring team from adding these bonus point(s). Why should the team that has allowed their opponent to score a TD be afforded any opportunity to score themselves?

Just playing devil's advocate since I work under NCAA rules only but...

The extra point is danged near automatic now. So it is almost a gimmee. Why not make the offense be somewhat concerned that an error on their part could result in a score by B?

1) Horse collar...fine by me, it is a safety thing.
2) Play clock...the coaches around here don't even want the BJ visible count. Most schools don't have the money.
3) 40/25 clock...the clock operators we have get confused enough as it is, no thank you please.
4) No LoD on OPI...either that or make the yardage penalty less, maybe like illegal touching.
5) Ending A-11...by all that is holy, yes.
6) No free kick after fair catch...who cares, I mean really?
7) B scores on a try...no.
8) Fouls by offense behind the LoS...besides the occasional holding call, is this really a big deal?

I'm surprised the ability to bring a kick out of the EZ vs it being an auto-TB is not up for consideration.

The offense has earned the opportunity to "try" for a bonus point. The defense has earned nothing, but is given a fair opportunity to prevent the offense from earning their bonus.

Why would you want to reward the defense for allowing their opponent to score a TD?

The NCAA rule was changed in 1988 as there was thought that the extra point was too much in favor of the offense and the change was needed to restore some balance. They also hoped to reduce the number of PAT kicks. They achieved the 1st goal but did not do much on the 2d.

two upcoming features
 

Dear Officials:

Two great pieces coming out this month: a) ESPN Magazine - should be a great piece,

and b) the NY Times called today, and the A-11 Offense will be featured as one of great inventions in the Country in 2008 in their annual issue.

* That is great news for: the kids, the coaches, the Refs, the fans and the NFHS and CIF...plus all of the other teams, coaches, players and states who ramped up the A-11 in 2008.

:)