NFHS Survey up

[grantsrc]

The NFHS football rules change survey is up and it has two questions that deal specifically with the A-11 which would make it illegal and close the loop hole that the A-11 takes advantage.

I encourage any of you that are NFHS members to take the survey prior to its close on December 5.

[KurtBryan]

Thanks, and ...

Most importantly, in addition to the people who have actually worked A-11 games, coached in A-11 games, and worked A-11 games as Officials, most of the feedback has been very positive indeed.

Lastly, below is the quote from Mr. Brad Cashman, Chairman of the NFHS Rules Committee, and the Link to his interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Cashman, "It's nothing more than a spread offense. It's not that difficult to defend, and it's not difficult to officiate.”

Link to the Philadelphia Inquirer article:

PIAA not likely to ban radical offense | Philadelphia Inquirer | 10/12/2008

[Rich]

Why don't you post the part of the article that doesn't align with "your side?"

The North Carolina High School Athletic Association is among 10 states that banned the radical offense. Its director of officials, Mark Dreibelbis, said it's "unfair to the defense and cannot be officiated.

"The exception was put in in 1978 for scrimmage kicks," Dreibelbis said. "The long-snapper is a skilled position, and teams didn't always have a player numbered 50 to 59 to perform that skill. Rules makers never dreamed of making an exception for a specific play situation [scrimmage kick] into an every-play down."

Amen. Good luck when this finally does get banned.

[KurtBryan]

RichMSN:

I linked the entire article for everybody who has not already read it, and there are only 7 states and D.C. who did not allow it this past season, not 10 as the article incorrectly states.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, Mr. Brad Cashman - Chairman of the NFHS Rules Committee was responding in part to the North Carolina SRI words, NOT MINE...and so the Chairman's direct words and quote carry TREMENDOUS weight because he understands BOTH sides, not just one side or the other. It is clear based on Mr. Cashman's quote the A-11 will not ruin the game in the least.

In fact, there are obviouly a whole lot of people who love the wide open, innovative aspect of the A-11, how it helps smaller teams be slightly more competitive, and all of the variables it offers up.

And now that our teams have played 22 straight games over two years without one of our players suffering a major injury in the A-11, it definitely helps to keep the kids safer too. Very much a strong point indeed.

Happy Holidays,

KB

[JRutledge]

A-11 offense sparks controversy

Here is also a link that clearly shows everyone is not "sold" on the offense.

BTW, both Kurt and I were referenced in this article.

When the A-11 was presented to the rules committee of the National Federation of State High School Associations, it was ruled legal, but not unanimously.

"Some people question whether it's taking advantage of the rule," said Bob Colgate, the federation's assistant director and liaison to the football rules committee. "It is innovative, and [the committee does] respect that, but they also want to make sure that it can be officiated and that it's not making a travesty of the game."

Happy Thanksgiving.

Peace

[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?

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

A-11 offense sparks controversy

Here is also a link that clearly shows everyone is not "sold" on the offense.

BTW, both Kurt and I were referenced in this article.



Happy Thanksgiving.

Peace

Hey Jeff, will you sign my A-11 Installation Manual?

[JRutledge]

Anytime.

Just make sure you send me $100 for shipping and handling first.

Peace

[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.

[Tim C]

. . . with Kurt is that he is simply doing everything that is not what the National Federation of State High Schools stand for -- he is taking advantage of a rule that is written to save expenses (cost of uniforms) and playing it into his advantage.

The spirit of the rule is clear -- it is for a scrimage kick and he has basically cheated the system by taking advantage of a loop hole.

Let's hope that intelligence and the understanding of what NFHS sports are about will end this charade and simply kill this illegal formation.

Regards,

Tim Christensen
Publication Committee Member

High School Today

The Voice of Education-Based Athletic and Fine Arts Activities

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by Tim C

he is taking advantage of a rule that is written to save expenses

Is that really the rationale?