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

[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?

[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?

[KurtBryan]

I simply keep restating facts based on two years of the offense and the results regarding lack of injuries, balance of the game, and quoting key people.

Also, I have MANY times referenced both sides of the story when it comes to features about the A-11, and have gone out of my way to SHOW RESPECT to the people who do not like it. And, we have many articles linked/posted on our web site that covers both sides. So what you are saying is again, not true.

It is interesting to note on your end...

If Mr. Brad Cashman (Chairman of the NFHS Rules Committee) had gone on the record and said the A-11 was bad for football and that it was a travesty of the game, wow, can you imagine how some of you would be trumpeting those words?

But now, since the Chairman of the NFHS Rules Committee Did Just the Opposite....now all of the sudden he is only "one guy" and it doesn't matter.

So, let me say it AGAIN for the zillionth time:

"I respect and fully understand that many people like this new offense, and that others do not like it, and that is perfectly OK to be on one side or the other, or indifferent too. There is plenty of room in America for more than one brand of football."

Happy Thanksgiving, KB

[mbyron]

I'm so looking forward to not having to read this tripe in a few months. One way or the other. Sheesh.

[aschramm]

Originally Posted by KurtBryan

There is plenty of room in America for more than one brand of football."

Happy Thanksgiving, KB

You're right, there's always soccer and rugby...

The point you make about not having a serious injury...I'm sorry, that's just a fluke happening then. You can have teams that run the most basic of formations and never have serious injuries, and at the same time you can have a back or receiver running downfield and get brought down by a horse-collar tackle, and severely mess up your legs, regardless of what original formation was used at the beginning of play.

[JRutledge]

Kurt is trying to sell everyone on this offense, because he is in it for the money. He has tapes and videos for sale to promote this offense. I did not want to say that earlier, but it is more and more clear to me the more and more he talks about the legality of this issue. That is why he references the same sales pitch on every website and gives the same quotes. Then he accuses everyone of giving only their “opinion” when they reference other comments that contradict his position. He does not care about if the offense is good or bad for the game. He only cares that he makes money off of this. Who else sends testimonials about some crack study that it makes the game safer? Usually to have a study accepted, it has to be researched for much more than a 2 year period and you consider many other possible factors. You cannot just assume that only one factor is keeping players safe. We also have more field turf, better equipment, more emphasis on illegal hits (even the NFL has done a much better job of awareness) and probably better coaching techniques across the board. All of these things are factors in injuries and probably many other things I cannot even think of right now.

Kurt keeps repeating that (one person) off the NF Committee says, when there is probably more to their comments and other committee members have expressed concern publicly. I think he believes we are all stupid at this point. He also ignores that many states took a position they would outlaw the offense and these are voting members into the NF process and they could influence the position the committee members will vote on. I have not heard this much buzz about any rules change and the rules somehow change. I could be wrong, but I see the rule being changed in the next couple of years. The only reason it will not be changed now, is because the NF Football Committee will not know how to change the rule, similarly to other college or pro rules that have been adopted in recent years. Or they may deem there are not enough schools using the offense that this makes much of a difference to change this rule.

Peace

I was looking at the diagram of the A-11 offense in one of the links on this board, and to me, the alignment isn't that much different than the lonesome polecat offense I had read about in the past. Matter of fact, I've seen a version of this in 8-man football, and it's not that hard to officiate, just so long the offense meets the requirement of 5 men on the line.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Ref Ump Welsch

I was looking at the diagram of the A-11 offense in one of the links on this board, and to me, the alignment isn't that much different than the lonesome polecat offense I had read about in the past. Matter of fact, I've seen a version of this in 8-man football, and it's not that hard to officiate, just so long the offense meets the requirement of 5 men on the line.

The part that makes it trickey is that none of the players will assume an initial position on the LOS until right before the snap. They shift, pause for the required second and then go. If they're all wearing eligible numbers, that can make things a little interesting.