The Snake Oil Salesman Is At It Again

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by daggo66

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.

Actually this is untrue. The NF does consider how a rule will affect the officiating. This is why many rules are not adopted from the NCAA or NFL ranks, because they have complicated elements to the rules that might not have consistent application of the intent and purpose. Now this might not be a big issue with this rule, but that fact is considered.

Peace

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Actually this is untrue. The NF does consider how a rule will affect the officiating. This is why many rules are not adopted from the NCAA or NFL ranks, because they have complicated elements to the rules that might not have consistent application of the intent and purpose. Now this might not be a big issue with this rule, but that fact is considered.

Peace

I didn't really word my intent correctly. You are correct. An example is the addition of the 5 yard face mask rule because they felt officials were reluctant to call the 15 yard variety on a slight infraction. What I was trying to convey was that I don't believe testimonials from officials who have worked the formation without apparent issue is going to have any sway in the decision making process, if in fact there is even any decision to be made. Quite possibly the introduction on this "position paper" could influence the NF to make a decision. Either way I expect the results to be interesting and no doubt will spark some lively debate.

[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.