The Snake Oil Salesman Is At It Again

[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.

[TXMike]

Originally Posted by newmdref

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.

And yet you chime in to extend the discussion even further.

Suggestion to those of you who think this has dragged on too long, control your fingers and do not click on the thread. Unless someone has a gun to your head, nobody is forcing you to look or chime in.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by newmdref

Ladies please.

Let's see:

(1) Register for board.
(2) Start a post with an insult.
(3) Assume people read past the insult.

How to win friends and influence people....

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by TXMike

It was not exploited back then because the coaches had integrity and honor

Oh, word the software here doesn't allow.

[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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by chymechowder

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?

The field goal was where it was used, but one could easily imagine other scenarios. 4th down or a try would've been the most attractive situations.

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?

It's advantageous because all players are eligible to recover, and if your linemen release downfield they're likely to overwhelm the defense in their way. And there'd be no rule against their knocking defenders away, and they could even push (though not pull or grasp) opponents with their hands in a personal attempt to get at the ball. Plus, the linemen are likely to outweigh their opponents in the secondary.

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.

But not accurately enough to allow for a mass charge of your line after the ball.

Robert

[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?