I agree! ;)

The king of double-speak strikes again! The so-called erroneous spirit of the rules comment was his own comment!

I guess my thought is, why is anyone surprised that this "paper" has been produced? It's obvious (to me anyway) that the coach has a vested interest in keeping this "great innovation" alive. So of course he's going to produce something that promotes the "virtue" of it. Of course he is not going to address the reason for the existence of the numbering requirement and the exception because that topic will destroy his argument.

What the rules makers are going to have to decide 1) is there a reason for the number requirement? 2) What was the reasoning behind the exception to the numbering requirement? And 3) do we wish to close the loophole currently in the exception that allows this "great innovation" to exist or should the numbering requirement be done away with? Until such time as it seems the end of days must be coming because someone sees fit to make me one of the rules makers, I'll just enforce the rules as written and how my assoc wants it done.

If anyone cares what my opinion is, going to the NCAA wording of a kicking situation must be obvious is what is needed in NFHS.

I have a serious question that I don't believe has been asked. What happens if someone decides to use the A-11 without purchasing the installation package? It certainly doesn't take a genious to figure it out. The youth leagues in MD do not have a numbering requirement for eligibles and therefore have been running the A-11 since the beginning.

You are absolutely correct, I don't know the history, or motivation, of "this person", which is why I would find it reprehensible to defame and denigrate him. Even if I did know his history, and even his motivation, I hope I would have the class to limit my opinions to the subject matter at hand rather than slide down to angry personal attacks. I haven't read everything he has written on this subject, but I have read numerous attempts on his part to explain his position to a hostile audience, without resorting to lowering his offerings to the personal level of some of those expressed in opposition.

Somehow, he seems to have managed to control his emotions to the point he tries to present a rational argument supporting his position. This may come as a shock to you, but disagreeing with a message doesn't require being disagreeable with the messenger. As for "crap", a perfect example is resorting to character assassination based on speculation and suspicion and the childish notion that denegrating the messenger somehow weakens his message.

As for the A-11 Offense, I couldn't care less what people think of it, other than their comments adding to my understanding of it, what it requires and whether it violates any existing rules. I appreciate the concerns some have, although I think most of those thus far expressed are somewhat exaggerated. At present, I do not see where this "loophole" violates existing rules, but requires a very high level of compliance with several other rules which causes me to question it's overall practicality. If those rules are subsequently amended to prohibit this "loophole", fine no problem, then we'll all deal with the revisions.

Personally I'm simply disappointed with the with the tone and temperment of some responses objecting to this formation. They speak poorly for the demeanor and manners of officials, in general. Picking apart previous statements to suggest they mean something that may, or may not, have ever entered the speakers mind based on pure speculation is, dare I suggest, "crap" of the first order.

What I may, or may not, have achieved is simply none of your concern and has nothing to do with this issue, or this discussion, much as your achievements or failures have no practical interest to me. I would appreciate any useful detail anyone can provide about the management of this formation and practical advice regarding mechanics that would be helpful in monitoring the eligibility of receivers.

Until such time the rules are adjusted to prohibit this formation, I'll consider it legal and focus on preparing for it and dealing with it. I haven't yet heard all the questions, much less know all the answers, and whining and complaining hasn't helped shorten that gap. How close I come to, " look(ing) like you know everything" is largely a matter of how ignorant those doing the looking actually are.

Perhaps it would be better that you do gather all the information before you declare your holier than thou opinion. You really need to read all this from the very beginning which started last year. Keep in mind this is a forum of officials. KB joined here hoping to get an endorsement. He stayed as we foolishly argued with him. I say foolishly because he learned from us and then used his uncany ability of double speak to spin certain comments to his advantage.

KB came up with this offense and made sure that he could use it legally. It was somewhat successful for his team and they continued to use it. Why isn't that the end of the story? He probably could have flown under the radar with this for the rest of his career. First and foremost he is selling a product and he tried using this forum and it's members in the process. Am I defaming him? No, I am merely stating the facts. Don't take my word for it, read it all for yourself.

I agree that this "great innovation" is predicated on the numbering exception. That is the only thing that allows this to exist, otherwise it would be just a variation of a spread offense.

That being said the rules committee can close the loophole by not allowing the numbering exceptions, with an exception possibly at center. That is the only key position that might require a numbering exception.

Perhaps I've been trying too hard to be subtle, daggo66, but I don't need to "read everything" to recognize bad manners. As I've tried to state, I don't give a rat's *** about the A-11 offense, and am prepared to deal with whatever the rules people tell me to deal with.

This is an Official's Forum and in the same way I would try and tactfully point out an obvious mistake to a fellow official on the field, I tried to do the same, long ago, when the tone of some of my fellow officials started getting out of hand. Bad manners reflect on all of us. No matter what you may think the justification might be, throwing a (verbal) hissy fit is unbecoming and poor behavior. Justifying bad behavior by shouting and trying to defend it has never and will never work. These personal attacks and all this ridiculous speculation about who's motivated by what is BS, plain and simple. It doesn't strengthen your argument and only makes you (and possibly by extension the rest of us) look petty and low class.

It's not a "holier than thou" opinion I've been trying to get through to some. It's more a, "You're acting like a spoiled child and making yourself, and by association, the rest of us look bad", wake up and knock it off.

If you are unhappy with the way proponents of the A-11 have acted and want to present an opposing opinion, knock yourself out, but do it without lowering your standards.. Remember, however, this is an "Officials Forum" and your behavior reflects on the rest of us, so act like an adult and behave like someone with something serious to add to the discussion.

Take this as constructive criticism and "if the shoe fits, put it on". If not, ignore it.

When a guy proclaims that his offense prevents serious injuries..... I mean reduces serious injuries..... I meant produced no serious injuries.... (get the point?) without providing one shred of documented research to support his mysteriously diminishing claims, then I will call him out.

I don't care if you or anyone else thinks I am acting childish, boorish, unprofessional and/or any other adjective you can come up with.

I will state my opinion whether you like it or not.

You have the opportunity to ignore it as well...........

You are way off base. It is absolutely essential to understand someone's motivation when taking a position in any discussion. The fact that KB is selling the A-11 and trying to make money from it is something that must be considered when discussing the topic. If his only motivation was to improve his team and share it with fellow coaches, why in the world would he come on this web site and discuss it with us? I don't care about the A-11. If someone in my area ran it (as was rumored but never happened this past season) I would officiate it to the letter of the rule. Keep in mind that the letter of the rule could end up with otherwise eligible receivers being ineligible because of their "initial" position on the LOS. I could absolutely predict that you could have a case of a slot receiver starting on the LOS, then realizing he should be off the line and stepping back causing him to remain ineligible. Once that call is made I can also predict a USC because the coach is never going to understand that. In my opinion that one instance is what makes the A-11 difficult to officiate. Not only do you have to quickly pick up who IS eligible, you have to remember throughout the down who IS NOT. How many times was something like this missed during Piedmont games? One of KB's comments was that they weren't called for ineligible downfield any more than normal. Fine, but how many were missed? From the videos it appears the crews were also extremely liberal with the 7 yard requirement as well as being set for one second. If it were my game I would err on the longer end of one second to give my wings time to acquire all the eligibles.

end of 2008
 

Dear Officials:

As always, your professional opinions are appreciated and respected.

Yes it is true the CIF suggested we write a position paper on the A-11, and yes, we tried to ably present both sides, and also put forth a lot of facts regarding a variety of items, based on two-years using the offense from our program, other programs, plus feedback from actual Officials who worked A-11games, etc.

Best of luck in the New Year 2009, I can hardly believe we are Nine years into the new Century.

Cheers, KB :)

MY TRANSLATION

My offense was never approved as previously claimed. I was advised that my offense did not violate any current written rule, but it did exploit an unintended loophole.

Now that the rules committe will actually meet to discuss my offense I have been advised to prove to the rules committee that I did not intentionally exploit the loophole.

***********************************************

Again.... why the need to justify your offense if it has already been approved?

What is CIF? You said that you tried to "present both sides". I don't recall reading anything negative in your position paper. Did I miss something? I don't view the "feedback from actual Officials" as objective unless it is something that came directly from them. Could you also please post all of your data from the study you conducted regarding injuries? I would also be interested in the control data.

Oh, word the software here doesn't allow.

Sorry coach, but the new century actually started in 2001.

I tell you what, I'll become a believer in the A-11 offense if you can get the NFL to let my Detroit Lions use it next season. God knows they need all the help they can get. :}