The Snake Oil Salesman Is At It Again

[umpirebob71]

I sure hope nobody around here (NE Ohio) tries this nonsense.

[BktBallRef]

Hopefully, the NFHS will rid us of this sham. I know Mr. Dreibelbis, North Carolina High School Athletic Association Director of Officials. will be leading the charge. Either way, I still won't have to contend with it in N.C.

[JugglingReferee]

Well done Kurt and Steve for preparing a convincing argument. Not everyone puts this much effort into something of the sort. It seems you certainly went through the proper channels to make your project legal.

The way I see it, the NFHS will either rule or not rule on the legality of the A-11.

If they do rule, then the A-11 is either legal or not legal based on the ruling of the NFHS. Could a state association subsequently allow the A-11?

I the do not rule, then the A-11 is either legal or not legal based on the ruling of each a state association.

Is this accurate?

[TXMike]

Wouldn't you put a lot of effort into something that , if it is not successful, means you lose all credibility and a good chunk of change?

In all that verbiage there, they do not even address the fundamental issue which is : what is the purpose for even having a numbering exception.

If someone wants to start a Canadian football league in the US, go for it. If someone wants to start an A-11 league in the US, go for it. But don't try to sneak around the intent of the rules to bastar_ize existing leagues.

[HossHumard]

Originally Posted by TXMike

If someone wants to start a Canadian football league in the US, go for it. If someone wants to start an A-11 league in the US, go for it. But don't try to sneak around the intent of the rules to bastar_ize existing leagues.

Whaa?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Well done Kurt and Steve for preparing a convincing argument. Not everyone puts this much effort into something of the sort. It seems you certainly went through the proper channels to make your project legal.

You believe everything he wrote?

The way I see it, the NFHS will either rule or not rule on the legality of the A-11.

If they do rule, then the A-11 is either legal or not legal based on the ruling of the NFHS. Could a state association subsequently allow the A-11?

I disagree. They haven't yet. Why would they now? They'll simply pass or defeat the proposals to limit SKF during obvious kicking situations.

If they do not rule, then the A-11 is either legal or not legal based on the ruling of each a state association.

State associations are the final say on interpretations in their state.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Well done Kurt and Steve for preparing a convincing argument. Not everyone puts this much effort into something of the sort. It seems you certainly went through the proper channels to make your project legal.

The way I see it, the NFHS will either rule or not rule on the legality of the A-11.

If they do rule, then the A-11 is either legal or not legal based on the ruling of the NFHS. Could a state association subsequently allow the A-11?

I the do not rule, then the A-11 is either legal or not legal based on the ruling of each a state association.

Is this accurate?

States can do whatever the heck they want when it comes to interpretations. The NF has no judicial power to make a state follow all rules if a state has determined something illegal or out of bounds. I was also told that states have much more leeway to be more restrictive when it comes to rules.

All the NF can do is take away a voting right when it comes to new rules and other NF business. If a state does not care, they can take whatever action they like.

Peace

[waltjp]

Typical – Kurt again reviews his submission and approval process, and even states that he had “questions regarding was the new offense an unfair act, was it a travesty of the game or deceptive, and was it within the spirit of the rules of the game.”

After reviewing the package they received their answer, “In February 2007 via the telephone, Stearns informed Coach Bryan that the A-11 Offense was indeed legal to use.”

No mention is made about the “spirit of the rules,” and I don’t believe anyone argued here that the A-11 is illegal under the current rules. I do believe we’ll be hearing differently very soon.

Kurt is a carnival huckster. He sees the writing on the wall and knows his sham will be over soon.

[daggo66]

Holy crap! Teams that run the A-11 have fewer injuries? If I order within the next 20 minutes will you double the size of my order?

[ajmc]

Sadly, some of us are just getting ridiculous about this issue. There is nothing wrong with having a negative position on the value of the A-11 offense, until you get spiteful and personally insulting about someone who holds a positive position. Some of the pure "crap" comments made on this subject are way over the top, and getting worse.

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

A proponent of this offense has apparently documented his argument supporting this practice. That seems like a standard, appropriate approach to take when there is a disagreement about a potential rule interpretation. It doesn't earn, or deserve, insult or demeaning personal comments or unfounded speculation on motivation, that exists only in the imagination of opponents, about the people who hold a different perspective.

If you disagree with this proposal, FINE, but show the decency and character to disagree civily. Document your counter argument, to whatever extent you wish but focus on the issue as related to the proposal and the game of football.

Do both yourselves, and your argument, a favor, and stop all this whining and personal attack nonsense, and keep your comments related to your perception of how this proposal, IN YOUR OPINION, negatively affects the game.

Despite periodic differences, the football rulemakers are all experienced practishioners with varying exposure to different facets of the game who all share a primary concern for "the best interests of the game". If you want to provide them with data that you believe will assist their decision making, by all means, knock yourself out.

Understand, that all this negative, personal attacking "cheap shots" is NOT helping your cause.

[KurtBryan]

Originally Posted by waltjp

Typical – Kurt again reviews his submission and approval process, and even states that he had “questions regarding was the new offense an unfair act, was it a travesty of the game or deceptive, and was it within the spirit of the rules of the game.”

After reviewing the package they received their answer, “In February 2007 via the telephone, Stearns informed Coach Bryan that the A-11 Offense was indeed legal to use.”

No mention is made about the “spirit of the rules,” and I don’t believe anyone argued here that the A-11 is illegal under the current rules. I do believe we’ll be hearing differently very soon.

Kurt is a carnival huckster. He sees the writing on the wall and knows his sham will be over soon.

Dear Officials:

It was suggested we write a comprehensive position paper about the A-11 for the NFHS rules committee, which we did.

Regarding the erroneous, "spirit of the rules" comment above, please take the time to review the position paper again submitted for the NFHS rules committee.

One of the items reviewed (in addition to many other listed in the paper or not listed) was the item of whether or not the offense within the spirit of the rules - as is clearly stated in the paper. It was found, yes, it is within the "spirit of the rules", and it is NOT a travesty of the game, or an unsporting act, etc. See below in bold one item pulled from the paper.

In January 2007, the coaches submitted a comprehensive package detailing the A-11
Offense and the rule interpretations associated with it to Mr. Bob Colgate at the NFHS.
The package contained specific rule interpretations about the SKF, the application of the
numbering exception, a host of possible formations, various shifting ideas, and questions
regarding was the new offense an unfair act, was it a travesty of the game or deceptive,
and was it within the spirit of the rules of the game…among other items as well.

The reason we detailed the entire review process we underwent, is so that every single person on the NFHS rules committee knows the exact process we went through upon submitting everthing to the NFHS, and then a detailed review by the CIF state association before it was ruled legal.

And to those who think we did not undergo that process - please know we would not put forth any document that was not true to the NFHS committee -it would be crazy to do that.

We interviewed coaches, players, officials, and trainers for the paper, and we also drew upon testimonials from those professions about the A-11 for the paper, or items relative to it.

Lastly, I appreciate all of your professional opinions and thank you.

KB

Link to read A-11 position paper: http://kurtbryan.blogspot.com/

[asdf]

Why the need for a position paper when your offense has already been approved?

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by KurtBryan

Dear Officials:

It was suggested we write a comprehensive position paper about the A-11 for the NFHS rules committee, which we did.

Regarding the erroneous, "spirit of the rules" comment above, please take the time to review the position paper again submitted for the NFHS rules committee.

One of the items reviewed (in addition to many other listed in the paper or not listed) was the item of whether or not the offense within the spirit of the rules - as is clearly stated in the paper. It was found, yes, it is within the "spirit of the rules", and it is NOT a travesty of the game, or an unsporting act, etc. See below in bold one item pulled from the paper.

In January 2007, the coaches submitted a comprehensive package detailing the A-11
Offense and the rule interpretations associated with it to Mr. Bob Colgate at the NFHS.
The package contained specific rule interpretations about the SKF, the application of the
numbering exception, a host of possible formations, various shifting ideas, and questions
regarding was the new offense an unfair act, was it a travesty of the game or deceptive,
and was it within the spirit of the rules of the game…among other items as well.

The reason we detailed the entire review process we underwent, is so that every single person on the NFHS rules committee knows the exact process we went through upon submitting everthing to the NFHS, and then a detailed review by the CIF state association before it was ruled legal.

And to those who think we did not undergo that process - please know we would not put forth any document that was not true to the NFHS committee -it would be crazy to do that.

We interviewed coaches, players, officials, and trainers for the paper, and we also drew upon testimonials from those professions about the A-11 for the paper, or items relative to it.

Lastly, I appreciate all of your professional opinions and thank you.

KB

Link to read A-11 position paper: http://kurtbryan.blogspot.com/

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