The Snake Oil Salesman Is At It Again

[TXMike]

At the most basic level, our purpose and charge is to prevent 1 team from cheating against another. When one of those teams unabashedly and deliberately cheats, it is going against our basic purpose, especially since there is little we can do to stop it. Folks can try to parse this and call it a "loophole" or call it "innovation" but an ethical coach would not deliberately cheat in this manner. It all comes down to what is the intent of the rule, and not even KB will argue that what he is doing is in accordnace with the intent.

[ajmc]

Hhmm, seems like I might have struck some nerves. BasketBallRef, you didn't miss any threads and haven't been appointed nor am I running for "God of the football forum", but just like you, I feel I have some right to complain about things I find distasteful, or excessive. Of course, if that's alright with you.

Like most of the readers of these forums, the whole issue of the A-11 generates some interest and I've paid attention to much of the pros and cons. Personally, I don't think it's a formation that will survive under it's own weight, but it's not up to me whether it does, or not.

Actually, I think some of the negative aspects of this argument, make sense. My problem is with how some opposing opinions have been expressed. I'm going to take a wild guess and assume I've been doing this a lot longer than you, and I've never been impressed with arguments that try and make their point, just by shouting or by personally attacking those they disagree with.

I don't know Coach Bryan, so I don't have any reason to doubt his sincerity, even if I might think he's wrong. From what I've seen, however, he has pursued his advocation of this formation civily, respectfully and ardently. Regardless of whether he will be ultimately proven right, or wrong, he has shown the good manners to remain respectful, despite some good reasons not to.

Step off your high horse for just a moment and consider, just the possibility, you may be simply wrong. Allow me to make a suggestion, one official to another, when you allow your argument to be propped up with unnecessary baggage (insults, personal attacks, speculating about motivation, mocking) all you accomplish is weakening your position.

For the most part, officials as a group, are able to remain calm when emotions and tempers flare, rationally digest all the views of the issue in question, and render an informed decision based on the facts. Jumping to conclusions, screaming and insulting opposite view points are attributes more normally associated with fans. We're usually able to stay above that, or at least should try to.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Hhmm, seems like I might have struck some nerves. BasketBallRef, you didn't miss any threads and haven't been appointed nor am I running for "God of the football forum", but just like you, I feel I have some right to complain about things I find distasteful, or excessive. Of course, if that's alright with you.

ajmc, it was a joke. Note the at the top of the post.

Your comments were just as excessive, if not more so, than the ones you criticize.

"Spare me all this "spirit of the rules" BS, that seems to apply ONLY when your specific viewpoint is offered. "

You're allowed to voice that others' opinions are BS but someone else can't voice his opinion that this man is a carnival huckster? Sorry but I don't buy that.

"Some of the pure "crap" comments made on this subject are way over the top, and getting worse."

No one made any "pure crap comments." Daggo66 used the term "Holy crap" in humor. I guess you're not a rerun fan of "Eveybody Loses Raymond" or you would better understand.

And I'm sure you didn't mean all the italics and boldface to be attacking, did you?

"I'm going to take a wild guess and assume I've been doing this a lot longer than you....,"

Not sure who you're addressing with this but it's nothing more than arrogance.

In any case, be careful, lest you fall off that high horse you've climbed on.

[daggo66]

I disagree with your point that KB deserves respect. He claims that his only intention is to allow everyone to use this revolutionary new offense he created to help the small schools compete. The bottom line is that he is selling this concept. That fact destroys his crediblity in my opinion and opens him up to attack. The only reason, again in my opinion, that he has done all of his so called research is to sell more product. If he just went about his business with the A-11, no one would know about it outside of his league and the Fed really wouldn't care. However he obviously wants to make money off of this so he has to make it as public as possible, while at the same time making sure that the NFHS doesn't make it illegal. IMO establishing an entire offensive according to a rule exception is wrong and clearly not in the spirit of what that exception was created for. What I am strongly against though is his entire approach. He originally came on this board pretending to see if any officials had heard about this exciting new offense and what we thought of it. He was fishing for testimonials. Eventually it was discovered what was going on and he disappeared from here. I applaud KB's ability to discover how to exploit that rule exception. My issue is that he is selling it while acting as if he is not.

[Ed Hickland]

I'm sure all of us as officials have seen various "strange" formations both legal and illegal.

The difference with the A-11 is it is being sold where Kurt Bryan becomes the Billy Mays of football formations. He has taken essentially an exception in the rules for convienience of bringing in the long snapper and exploited it, then, pimped it wherever possible as the savior of football as we know it. Seems like every time you look at the news there is an A-11 story. It even made the New York Times.

If I didn't know better Coach Bryan's motivation is to make himself known as a football innovator or better still he is looking to move on to bigger and better coaching assignments leaving us high school officials in his wake with what I opine is a rather difficult to officiate offense.

Would it have made sense for Piedmont to run that offense with whatever success they could gain and leave it at that?

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I'm going to take a wild guess and assume I've been doing this a lot longer than you

Maybe yes, maybe no. What relevance does this have?

I don't know Coach Bryan, so I don't have any reason to doubt his sincerity, even if I might think he's wrong. From what I've seen, however, he has pursued his advocation of this formation civily, respectfully and ardently.

Guess you missed his numerous "LOUD MINORITY" rants.

[archangel]

Originally Posted by ajmc

My problem is with how some opposing opinions have been expressed. I'm going to take a wild guess and assume I've been doing this a lot longer than you.....

Is this a good example of an oxymoron?
I'm not addressing the yahs and nays of this topic, or the merits of ajmc's statements, just the belief that one who uses the "experience or age" angle to back up their opinion, is usually operating from a perceived weak position.

Or maybe its the anti-authority streak in me...I've just never liked the "I'm right cause I've been doing it longer" response...

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by TXMike

At the most basic level, our purpose and charge is to prevent 1 team from cheating against another. When one of those teams unabashedly and deliberately cheats, it is going against our basic purpose, especially since there is little we can do to stop it. Folks can try to parse this and call it a "loophole" or call it "innovation" but an ethical coach would not deliberately cheat in this manner. It all comes down to what is the intent of the rule, and not even KB will argue that what he is doing is in accordnace with the intent.

I wouldn't call it cheating, just that people disagree over whether using this loophole is fair. We can compare this to the situation in NCAA I don't remember how long ago, maybe 15-20 years, when somebody discovered another football loophole. In making a change some time in the late 1960s or 1970s, NCAA had missed a conforming change they should've made at the same time, and this loophole lurked unexploited for years. There was no rule against batting either team's backward pass in any direction as long as it didn't go out of bounds. So one coach had the ostensible holder for a place kick arise slightly and then toss the ball up for the ostensible kicker to volleyball serve forward, then his team scrambled for the ball and recovered it for a touchdown.

The loophole and the play exploiting it was widely publicized and remained for the rest of the season, but it was not widely exploited as some thought. Basically everyone decided that it would be unfair to play the game that way, so they didn't.

However, that doesn't seem to be the case with A-11. There's no consensus that it's an unfair way to play.

Robert

[asdf]

Why would someone need to prepare a position paper for the NFHS Committee when the offense has already been "approved"?

For the record.....

I think he's a phony. (hee keeps proving this) And taking a page out of his "book", I have talked to plenty of coaches that think he's a phony as well.

[ajmc]

Excuse me BasketBallRef, archangel & WaltJP, but if you're going to quote me, at least put the quote in context, as it was initially stated. What I said was, "I'm going to take a wild guess and assume I've been doing this a lot longer than you, and I've never been impressed with arguments that try and make their point, just by shouting or by personally attacking those they disagree with."

Presuming, if I may, that most football officials have, over time, been exposed to any number of arguments, both on and off the field, that have been presented to them by people who have chosen to rely on shouting and personal attacks as the primary means to make a point, my best guess is this strategy is not usually considered very effective.

It has nothing to do with "the experience of age", although sometimes that can be enlightening and beneficial, anti-authority (a somewhat foreign concept to apply to an officiating environment) or arrogance, as much as it might be simple advice on how to avoid minimizing the value of your own argument by needlessly lowering your standards.

[Forksref]

This too shall pass. (no pun intended)

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Excuse me BasketBallRef, archangel & WaltJP, but if you're going to quote me, at least put the quote in context, as it was initially stated. What I said was, "I'm going to take a wild guess and assume I've been doing this a lot longer than you, and I've never been impressed with arguments that try and make their point, just by shouting or by personally attacking those they disagree with."

Okay, let's have it your way. Where have I shouted or used personal insults to make my argument? I believe that you're unsubstantiated accusations have nullified your arguments.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Excuse me BasketBallRef, archangel & WaltJP, but if you're going to quote me, at least put the quote in context, as it was initially stated. What I said was, "I'm going to take a wild guess and assume I've been doing this a lot longer than you, and I've never been impressed with arguments that try and make their point, just by shouting or by personally attacking those they disagree with."

That's the best defense you can offer for your arrogance?

[TXMike]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I wouldn't call it cheating, just that people disagree over whether using this loophole is fair. ..... So one coach had the ostensible holder for a place kick arise slightly and then toss the ball up for the ostensible kicker to volleyball serve forward, then his team scrambled for the ball and recovered it for a touchdown.

The loophole and the play exploiting it was widely publicized and remained for the rest of the season, but it was not widely exploited as some thought. Basically everyone decided that it would be unfair to play the game that way, so they didn't.

However, that doesn't seem to be the case with A-11. There's no consensus that it's an unfair way to play.

Robert

It was not exploited back then because the coaches had integrity and honor and knew what the intent of the rule was. To say nothing of the fact that doing this intentional bat put your team at great risk, far greater risk than using the A-11 puts your team in. So that is a bad analogy anyway.

As for the "consensus" , what will it take for you to see the "consensus" is it IS an unfair and cheating way to play? How many defenders does it have even here?

[newmdref]

Ladies please. After reading all of these postings today it is clear that everyone agrees that this is NOT a good thing for football. The powers that be will cauterize that loophole and we will move on no matter what type of marketing is done in the A-11's defense....it wil be defeated and rules will be changed or more clearly defined. I know many have made comments about integrity, spirit of the game, cheating, ect. as it relates to this subject and I can appreciate that, but the bottom line is that as of this moment they are not in violation of the rule as its current verbage dictates, reguardless of your personal feelings about these individuals.

I know I am a new official but I have played football from youth through the Div I collegiate level and if you think that players or coaches aren't thinking of ways to exploit the rules or officials on damn near every play you are sadly mistaken. Players and coaches will do whatever officials and commisioners allow them to do and as often as possible in order to gain an advantage. If everyone had the utmost integrity there would be be no need for us officials. The mere fact that we exist lends itself to the fact that given the chance people will do whatever it takes to win, reguardless of the rules.

I on one level can appreciate the attempt to give his team an advantage or at least level the playing field within the rules of the game but personally I think its a joke and we have given way to much discussion time to this subject.