The Snake Oil Salesman Is At It Again

[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.

[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."

Presuming, if I may, that most football officials have, over time, been exposed to any number of arguments, both on and off the field, that have been presented to them by people who have chosen to rely on shouting and personal attacks as the primary means to make a point, my best guess is this strategy is not usually considered very effective.

It has nothing to do with "the experience of age", although sometimes that can be enlightening and beneficial, anti-authority (a somewhat foreign concept to apply to an officiating environment) or arrogance, as much as it might be simple advice on how to avoid minimizing the value of your own argument by needlessly lowering your standards.

[Forksref]

This too shall pass. (no pun intended)

[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.

[newmdref]

Mike. I'm not trying to tell you or others what to do I'm just tired and so are many others of the "My Dad can beat up your Dad" conversation. If you want to talk about the offense as it relates football offciating great but think about a few points:

1. The more the A11 is discussed on public forums such as this one and the more controversy is stirred up from such conversation the more popular it will become thus giving momentum to those who have a vested interest in seeing it succeed. ie - you are contributing to the marketing of this offense of which you so despise

2. Some of the comments made about the individuals who have come up with this offense are slanderous in nature and if you think they are not monitoring this any many other websites like this one your sadly mistaken, especially since so much is at stake for them. The title of your thread in its self makes a slanderous inference




PS- sorry if I offended anyone, I forgot to put my smilely face after my "Ladies Please" comment

[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....

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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....

Had the very same thoughts...

[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.