The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Wed Dec 24, 2008, 12:03pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 289
Do these two statements contradict each other?

“An offensive revolution is coming to the NFL. Can anyone stop it?”

“The A-11 isn't close to legal in the NFL, and probably never will be.”

False advertising in the article header.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Wed Dec 24, 2008, 01:32pm
Ref Ump Welsch
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
One of the guys I worked a basketball game earlier this month said he ran into the A-11 here in Nebraska, in a freshman game. He ended up having the same school in the playoffs, and asked the varsity head coach if he uses any of the A-11 stuff, and the coach looked at him like he was crazy. Apparently, the freshman coaches at that school slipped some of that stuff in without letting the varsity coach know. What a riot.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Wed Dec 24, 2008, 04:42pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by newmdref View Post
The scrimmage kick formation or any variant of it as a base offense in college or the NFL will never happen
They dont need it in the NFL, because they can report in in/eligible number variations.

If they wanted something like it, they wouldn't use such a Rube Goldbergish means as a scrimmage kick formation numbering exception, they would simply abolish or alter the eligible receiver numbering rule they adopted decades ago. And I could see them doing that, because at the time they adopted the rule they picked up most of their rule chages from the colleges, while nowadays rules changes are as likely to come down from the pros into the colleges as vice versa.

As to the semi-prediction made by the article regarding roughing the passer, if the NFL did that it would probably wind up making the avg. offense more conservative than now. That's because if they adopted the kind of strict liability that exists now re contacting the kicker, they would surely have to adopt a similar caveat that it would not apply if the passer left "usual passing position". Which means that rather than passing up that additional protection for their expensive passers, teams would station them in "passing position" permanently.

Robert

Last edited by Robert Goodman; Wed Dec 24, 2008 at 05:06pm.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Wed Dec 24, 2008, 11:06pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
There is a reason we do not look to sports writers to understand basic rules.

Peace
"Normally used for punts, the rule stated that as long as the player receiving the snap was seven yards behind center, any teammate wearing the jersey of an eligible receiver (between Nos. 1 and 49 or 80 and 89) was permitted to go downfield."

Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 25, 2008, 01:06am
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,478
The writer in the article suggested that Bill Walsh created an offense that took advantage of a rule. All Bill Walsh did was create an offense that allowed players to do things they did not traditionally do. Actually they were running similar offenses with John Unitas in the 50s and 60s, Walsh just had success with the concept and created more plays with a specific concept. He did not take advantage of a rule to run that offense. And the article was a little misleading by suggesting that all players could go out for a pass. That is also not true; only 5 players can go out for a pass. There are just 11 eligible numbers but most are illegal by position. This was never stated clearly in the article.

You have to read the entire thing, not pull out one or two lines.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 25, 2008, 10:14am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 13
It's a shame that most fans and stupid sportswriters forget that the very integral portion of this game is strategy of maneuvering all body types and skills on your side of the ball forward, not just a few. The game was not meant to be a track meet. The game includes having to out maneuver big, strong, slow guys weighing 300+ pounds who have bricks for hands, who may have superior feet, making others maneuver around them at a risk. (I added the superior feet so everyone knows I’m talking about players, not umpires). Lets get to the point: A-11 is just flag football without the flags.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 25, 2008, 01:36pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 1,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by LDUB View Post
"Normally used for punts, the rule stated that as long as the player receiving the snap was seven yards behind center, any teammate wearing the jersey of an eligible receiver (between Nos. 1 and 49 or 80 and 89) was permitted to go downfield."

Yeah, they got that one wrong.
__________________
"And I'm not just some fan, I've refereed football and basketball in addition to all the baseball I've umpired. I've never made a call that horrible in my life in any sport."---Greatest. Official. Ever.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 25, 2008, 02:00pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,226
So the NFL want's more offense?

Wait a sec, there was a league that had a ton of scoring and different rule changes geared towards offensive scoring... Oh yeah! the Arena Football league. Let's watch some of their games... oh wait...

See, I guess people want to watch real football (NFL) instead of basketball with an oddly shaped ball (AFL / A-11FL)

"But bossman, my offense would give the Lions a FIGHTING CHANCE against these other teams!"
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 25, 2008, 04:02pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
The writer in the article suggested that Bill Walsh created an offense that took advantage of a rule. All Bill Walsh did was create an offense that allowed players to do things they did not traditionally do. Actually they were running similar offenses with John Unitas in the 50s and 60s, Walsh just had success with the concept and created more plays with a specific concept. He did not take advantage of a rule to run that offense.
What that means is, he took advantage of all the rules!
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 25, 2008, 05:09pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 1,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossman72 View Post
So the NFL want's more offense?

Wait a sec, there was a league that had a ton of scoring and different rule changes geared towards offensive scoring... Oh yeah! the Arena Football league. Let's watch some of their games... oh wait...

See, I guess people want to watch real football (NFL) instead of basketball with an oddly shaped ball (AFL / A-11FL)

"But bossman, my offense would give the Lions a FIGHTING CHANCE against these other teams!"
You gotta admit...Arenaball was a lot of fun. I'm not a snob, myself, so it doesn't have to be [pretentious quote]"Real"[/pretentious quote] for me to enjoy it for what it is. Or was. It did last 22 years and did get a lot of people to watch. Not nearly as much as the NFL, but then, it's not an either/or situation, is it?

Sure, the NFL is the most popular football league, but it's not the only one. And I don't think the AFL had an oddly-shaped ball, did it? It looked different, but I'm not sure it was oddly-shaped. May have been a tiny bit thinner for passing, don't know for sure.
__________________
"And I'm not just some fan, I've refereed football and basketball in addition to all the baseball I've umpired. I've never made a call that horrible in my life in any sport."---Greatest. Official. Ever.
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 25, 2008, 06:15pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by OverAndBack View Post
You gotta admit...Arenaball was a lot of fun. I'm not a snob, myself, so it doesn't have to be [pretentious quote]"Real"[/pretentious quote] for me to enjoy it for what it is. Or was. It did last 22 years and did get a lot of people to watch. Not nearly as much as the NFL, but then, it's not an either/or situation, is it?

Sure, the NFL is the most popular football league, but it's not the only one. And I don't think the AFL had an oddly-shaped ball, did it? It looked different, but I'm not sure it was oddly-shaped. May have been a tiny bit thinner for passing, don't know for sure.
You might be right, but the AFL is taking a year off. The XFL could not last more than 1 year. The Euro League is not defunct. And the USFL could not last and tried to sue the NFL to maintain. The NFL must be doing something right. People might complain that there is not enough scoring, but all those leagues had gimmicks associated with their games to them a no one seems to be watching. Even the CFL tried to work in this county and they only lasted a year or two. I do not think people are looking for a video game football style league. That might be changing, but nothing else seems to work.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 25, 2008, 11:36pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
You might be right, but the AFL is taking a year off. The XFL could not last more than 1 year. The Euro League is not defunct. And the USFL could not last and tried to sue the NFL to maintain. The NFL must be doing something right. People might complain that there is not enough scoring, but all those leagues had gimmicks associated with their games to them a no one seems to be watching. Even the CFL tried to work in this county and they only lasted a year or two. I do not think people are looking for a video game football style league. That might be changing, but nothing else seems to work.
OTOH, the year the WFL started playing, the NFL adopted most of their rules either directly or in spirit, so it appears the NFL was scared.
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 25, 2008, 11:47pm
Fav theme: Roundball Rock
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Near Dog River (sorta)
Posts: 8,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
You might be right, but the AFL is taking a year off. The XFL could not last more than 1 year. The Euro League is not defunct. And the USFL could not last and tried to sue the NFL to maintain. The NFL must be doing something right. People might complain that there is not enough scoring, but all those leagues had gimmicks associated with their games to them a no one seems to be watching. Even the CFL tried to work in this county and they only lasted a year or two. I do not think people are looking for a video game football style league. That might be changing, but nothing else seems to work.

Peace
Three, not 'a year or two'. And helped produce quality officials such as Bill Vinovich, #52. And was attractive to Modell because of the exposition due to the CFL team. Modell had a large debt and a new team was the way to get rid of that debt.
__________________
Pope Francis
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old Fri Dec 26, 2008, 12:47am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 1,023
I didn't say the NFL wasn't doing something right. There's no question, it's the absolute highest level of football, the best football and probably the best and most popular sports league in human history. I love it.

But I have room in my pallette of things I like for things that aren't the NFL. That's just me. If it's not you, that's cool, too. I dug the USFL, warts and all (the new one ain't gonna play a game, and neither is the UFL). I liked watching Arenaball for a bit.

The NFL has constantly tweaked its game over the years to make it as appealing as possible. The rules changes in 1974 (coincident with the WFL, they may or may not have been in response to it) and 1978 and the tweaks over the years have been made with the idea of keeping offense and scoring and excitment up when defense has seemingly gained an advantage. Fans like the ball in the air. Yet, the game we watch today is still very similar to what they watched in 1958. Bigger players? Yep. Faster? You bet. More window dressing? Yeah. But still basically the same game. A great game. But not the only game, IMHO, worth giving some attention to.
__________________
"And I'm not just some fan, I've refereed football and basketball in addition to all the baseball I've umpired. I've never made a call that horrible in my life in any sport."---Greatest. Official. Ever.
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old Fri Dec 26, 2008, 02:05am
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by OverAndBack View Post
A great game. But not the only game, IMHO, worth giving some attention to.
My only suggestion is that even if you like other leagues that does not mean others like those games too. And the fact that those leagues fell off, to me is a suggestion that everyone is not totally hip with the rules or style of play of all those games. One of the reasons I feel the NFL is loved, is because it has some tie to the past. If you totally change the game, you might totally change who watches it. And I do not see the NFL or any other level totally allowing such rules to come into their game because the game would look nothing like it did even 100 years ago. Rules changes are usually in place to make slight changes in the game, not completely destroy its foundation.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ESPN the Magazine Article by a Son 3SPORT Football 6 Sun Dec 14, 2008 05:13pm
Referee Magazine Article IREFU2 Basketball 8 Thu Feb 24, 2005 08:37am
Article on ESPN.com mj Basketball 18 Mon Oct 18, 2004 03:42pm
Referee Magazine article DownTownTonyBrown Baseball 3 Tue Mar 18, 2003 08:59am
Yet another complimentary ESPN article ChuckElias Basketball 4 Wed Feb 26, 2003 11:20am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:16am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1