The Snake Oil Salesman Is At It Again

[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?

[chymechowder]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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.

totally separate from the A-11 issue, i'm intrigued by this scenario. Mostly I'm having a difficult time seeing what the potential advantage to be gained by this loophole would be.

are you talking about a team lining up for a field goal or a point after?

how would volleyball serving the ball forward then scrambling for it be any more advantageous than simply throwing a forward pass? I can see that you'd have the "bonus" of the ball being live after it hits the ground. (as opposed to an incomplete forward pass, which is of course dead)...but is the offense any more likely to fall on that batted ball than the defense is?

when would it make sense to do this? If you're lined up to kick a point after, the odds of recovering the volleyball serve couldn't have been any greater than simply lining up to go for two, right?

if it was a short field goal try, would you sacrifice an "easy" three points for the risk/reward of recovering a loose ball in the endzone?

I freely admit that I could be missing something about this play that would give the offense an (unfair) advantage. assuming that it would behoove the offense to do that, how about this?

holder takes snap, kicker moves in directly behind holder. holder turns and fires a backwards pass off the kickers helmet. ball rebounds forward. as it would in the volleyball serve scenario--granted you couldn't control it as well as a volleyball serve, but you could probably get it forward.

rules wise, I don't think there'd be anything illegal here, at least according to the NCAA book. there is the rule against advancing a planned loose ball in the vicinity of the snapper (fumblerooski). but if you cleared the snapper with this ricochet backwards pass, I think you'd be ok on 7-1-7.

[sloth]

I have yet to see the A-11 up close and personal. I suspect I will this next season as some of the local coaches in Indiana have started talking about it. As long as the coach lets us know ahead of time and we, as a crew, can talk about it before hand, I'm not too worried.

Is it in the spirit of the game...probably not. But you always have this issue when addressing unconventional plays. I think the challange is for us, as officials, to think of the best way to cover this type of offense should we see it in 2009. I think that is a far better course of action as opposed to complaining about it or lobbying NFHS or state associations to outlaw the formation.

[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?

[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?

[KurtBryan]

Originally Posted by asdf

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

Since the A-11 was up for discussion and the items relative to it, it was suggested we develop the paper to put forth the correct story and facts behind its history and results, etc.

Gotta go for the day.

Thanks guys, KB

[asdf]

You said your offense was approved.....

Why aren't you peppering the message boards with your complaints that less than one year after approval, your offense may be considered illegal?

If I had a valid financial interest in this, I'd be all over the place highlighting the facts surrounding the approval, including but not limited to, the people involved, the comments and notes from the approval, etc...

I'd take this as an opportunity for a pre-emtive strike against those who may now possibly be changing their minds about their approval of my offense.


Then again............

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by asdf

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

"cause he's skeered...skeered they're gonna shut him down!

[KurtBryan]

Dear Officials:

It is without merit that a few posters on this site, habitually cut down, verbally abuse and flat out lie, especially considering that the ones abusing this board are football officials. Not all indeed, but just a few, it is sickening, as some Officials on this board have pointed out.

1. Why on earth when the CIF suggested we write a position paper about the offense would we refuse? .............seems perfectly logical position to ask for a piece to be done representing our perspective, and those of other coaches, players and officials who have handled the offense.

2. We put forth the facts and history of the offense, nothing misrepresented, in fact, we used exact names, quotes and timelines. You will see when the NFHS rules committee reviews it, that yes indeed all chronilogical items listed in the paper will be found as 100% factual. And, with quotes from coaches and officials, FROM BOTH sides we tried to be fair and balanced.

3. Selling of Products? ..............Our staff is just like THOUSANDS of other male and female coaches worldwide, we were asked to have our information developed by a professional football company (just like they do with other coaches) and we said yes, it was an honor.

4. Scared (as Bktball ref said above)........What? Scared of what? Our case has not only been well documented, by our staff and officials in this region, but now by many other coaches and officials in many other states. It is scary on the other hand, when a small percentage of officials have gone on the record to say the offense cannot be officiated and are shouting..............but the reality of the offense and testimony from Actual Officials working A-11 games in Many states goes in Direct Opposite and they are on Record as saying the Offense is Indeed able to be Officiated properly.

5. There is plenty of room in America for more than one brand of football...that has been the case and always shall remain that way.

*Lastly, as one of the Officials on this board has made great pains to point out, to the officials on this board who continue to be verbally abusie, slanderous and libelous, please stop. Your ugliness is a sad testimony to your lack of maturity and class. It is frightening to think of what is behind it.

As always, I have nothing but respect for ALL opinions and perspectives, but please be kind enough to keep things clean.

Best of luck and Happy New Year to all of you.

KB

[jaybird]

Kurt,

This is an officials forum and you are not getting what you want so wise up and go away!

[Mike L]

For the previous poster who asked, the CIF is the California Interscholastic Federation which is the governing body for high school sports in California. What the CIF did for coach KB is tell him his offense does not violate the NFHS rules under which we operate as they are currently written. Nothing more. How each section within the CIF (there are 10 area sections within the state) determines to officiate the offense is up to them. Our section (San Diego) pretty much leaves that kind of stuff up to our association to decide.

My opinion remains, the NFHS either needs to close the numbering requirement exception loophole or just get rid of the numbering requirement. My vote comes down on the side of closing the loophole.

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by Mike L

For the previous poster who asked, the CIF is the California Interscholastic Federation which is the governing body for high school sports in California. What the CIF did for coach KB is tell him his offense does not violate the NFHS rules under which we operate as they are currently written. Nothing more. How each section within the CIF (there are 10 area sections within the state) determines to officiate the offense is up to them. Our section (San Diego) pretty much leaves that kind of stuff up to our association to decide.

My opinion remains, the NFHS either needs to close the numbering requirement exception loophole or just get rid of the numbering requirement. My vote comes down on the side of closing the loophole.

Thanks Mike. That actually makes things clearer for me. In my experience people who are trying to skirt an issue like to use alot a acronyms without saying what they mean. It kind of sounds impressive. The MPSSA (Maryland Public Secondary Schools Athletic Association) rules interpreter made a similar statement regarding the A-11.

The only thing the NFHS will decide, or not decide is the actual rule. I'm pretty confident all of the hyperbole will be ignored. Especially the part as to whether or not the formation can be "officiated." I highly doubt that has been a consideration for any past rule changes. It has always been up to the officials to create the mechanics to best officiate the game according to the rules we are given.

KB I don't believe anyone here has been verbally abusive nor libelous. Certainly no one has been slanderous since that deals with the spoken word. We certainly have differences of opinion and are entitled to express them. Just as you expect officials to have thick skin on the field, I would expect you to have some thick skin entering the realm of officials. No one is harder on an official when it comes to rules than another official. I had a post game discussion with my crew this past season and a coach happened in on us. He was shocked listening to us going at it. We had to explain we were just having a simple discussion regarding a ruling. Take a look at some of the non-A-11 threads on this forum. We can go at it pretty good during that course of a discussion. If you think that is verbal abuse then I would suggest you move on.

[3SPORT]

Kurt - Answer this question

What is the spirit and intent of the rule you are exploiting?
The formation you are using is the SCRIMMAGE KICK formation and the numbering EXCEPTION to this rule.

The rule is not called the SCRIMMAGE PASS formation or SCRIMMAGE RUN formation, though you can certainly do both from this to reach the line to gain.

Hence the numbering exception is to allow the SCRIMMAGE KICKING team to have different numbered players play on the line for this ONE PLAY and get more PARTICIPATION of players on the field. This allows the kids who might not start or play very much the opportunity to play in the game.

The reason guys on this forum so vehemently disagree with you is that you are EXPLOITING a loophole in the rule. That is plain WRONG.

By definition officials are there to make sure that NO TEAM gains an advantage by exploiting the rules. You are EXPLOITING the spirit and intent of the rule.

At this time by rule we cannot deny a team of using this formation on every down.

Go ahead and write position papers and books and sell this as a legitimate every down formation.

If I was a betting man, I would bet that NFHS rule committee will close this loophole in 2009 and put an end to the A-11 nonsense.

[rockchalk jhawk]

Originally Posted by 3SPORT

Kurt - Answer this question

What is the spirit and intent of the rule you are exploiting?

Kurt-
I think that this is the biggest question that people feel you are skirting (and thereby ruining a significant chunk of your credibility) and one that 90% of most of the naysayers of the A11 would like an answer to. So could we please have a straight forward answer to what I think most of us would agree is a VERY fair and reasonable question.