NFHS Survey up

[KurtBryan]

Again, does the A-11 make a Travesty of the game?......WAS one of the items Reviewed and Discussed BEFORE it was declared Legal and OK to use.

In fact, MANY officials who worked our A-11 games during the past two years have made it clear the A-11 Does NOT, (repeat) does NOT make a Travesty of the game.

Just the opposite, many a Refs said it was keeping them on their toes and quite Refreshing, a challege welcomed.

Now what do you say to Those Officials who have actually worked games where the A-11 was used and to them it was not a big deal and perfectly OK by them???

Happy Thanksgiving too. KB

[Rich]

Originally Posted by KurtBryan

Again, does the A-11 make a Travesty of the game?......WAS one of the items Reviewed and Discussed BEFORE it was declared Legal and OK to use.

In fact, MANY officials who worked our A-11 games during the past two years have made it clear the A-11 Does NOT, (repeat) does NOT make a Travesty of the game.

Just the opposite, many a Refs said it was keeping them on their toes and quite Refreshing, a challege welcomed.

Now what do you say to Those Officials who have actually worked games where the A-11 was used and to them it was not a big deal and perfectly OK by them???

Happy Thanksgiving too. KB

Blah, blah, blah. Only those who share your view have credibility. What's point of anyone saying otherwise, you'll just find people that align with your view.

Before you do this, though, please let us know what the intent and purpose of the numbering exception is and why they call it "scrimmage KICK" formation?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Before you do this, though, please let us know what the intent and purpose of the numbering exception is and why they call it "scrimmage KICK" formation?

Same reason "grabbing the face mask" includes grabbing a helmet opening (edge) but is still called (AFAIK) "grabbing the face mask" -- convenience.

What else is Fed surveying for football? I mean what other questions?

Robert

[OverAndBack]

it's "unfair to the defense and cannot be officiated."

Despite all evidence to the contrary.

I'm not a huge fan of it, either, and its originator is a bit full of himself, but, whatever. It takes advantage of a loophole that, like many loopholes, is exploited in a way that the rules book writers didn't intend it to be used. That's, I guess, fair play.

And necessity is the mother of invention, so the small school staying with a bigger school thing, fine. Whatever.

A-11 seems to me to be neither the greatest thing since sliced bread nor the worst thing since socialism. It is what it is until it isn't anymore. But, to me at least, the biggest problem is that it exploits something that exists for a different purpose - not that it can't be defended or officiated, because it's been proven that it can be defended and officiated.

[HLin NC]

They ask about dropping the LOD from OPI, making the previous spot the basic spot for fouls by A behind the previous spot on loose ball and running plays, allowing the team in possession of the ball to choose either the spot where the helmet came off the ball carrier OR replay the down as an option are what I recall.

I can't pull it up to review it now that I've completed it

[Theisey]

Just remember, or if you don't really know... the survey is just that .. it's a survey to get the feel for the pulse of those taking it which includes a lot of coaches.

Those that get a lot of "yes" responses may come up for a vote in January or whenever they do this. At that time, the item may make it into the rules for 2009 and then again, then may defer it until some future year.