The Snake Oil Salesman Is At It Again

[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.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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

What else can you hold up as an example of the 'spirit of the rules' being violated that would contradict any of the opinions stated here?

[TXMike]

[QUOTE=ajmc;562410]Sadly, some of us are just getting ridiculous about this issue. .....
A proponent of this offense has apparently documented his argument supporting this practice. QUOTE]

So...how many A-11 Installation Manual packages can we sign you up for?


Did you read his "reasoning"? Talk about playing loose with the facts!

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by 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.

I'm sorry but I must have missed the thread where the moderators made YOU, GOD of the Football Forum.

[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.

[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...

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by 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.

What he said.

I don't think this is a Galileo and the Pope circumstance, but at this point, many are just piling on. We get it - you think the A-11 is a blight on the game, and that's fine. But Kurt Bryan now elicits a pavlovian response that may be unnecessarily harsh.

It's not about anybody being appointed "God," it's about...just enough already. No one's breaking any new ground here. Now it's up to the Fed and (more likely) your individual state to rule. And I'd hope their rulings would take everything into account, not just "Well, I don't like it and I don't like Kurt Bryan and I don't think you should be able to do that just because it doesn't look like football and it's a travesty."

At the end of the day, we don't make policy, gentlemen. We are instruments of that policy. If they close the loophole, great. He's out of business and everybody goes back to their lives. We officiate the games they assign us, in the manner to which we're trained and instructed. We do it for many reasons, but "to see people with whom we disagree crushed" doesn't seem to me to be high on the list.

[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.

[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.