The Snake Oil Salesman Is At It Again

[Mike L]

I guess my thought is, why is anyone surprised that this "paper" has been produced? It's obvious (to me anyway) that the coach has a vested interest in keeping this "great innovation" alive. So of course he's going to produce something that promotes the "virtue" of it. Of course he is not going to address the reason for the existence of the numbering requirement and the exception because that topic will destroy his argument.

What the rules makers are going to have to decide 1) is there a reason for the number requirement? 2) What was the reasoning behind the exception to the numbering requirement? And 3) do we wish to close the loophole currently in the exception that allows this "great innovation" to exist or should the numbering requirement be done away with? Until such time as it seems the end of days must be coming because someone sees fit to make me one of the rules makers, I'll just enforce the rules as written and how my assoc wants it done.

If anyone cares what my opinion is, going to the NCAA wording of a kicking situation must be obvious is what is needed in NFHS.

[3SPORT]

Originally Posted by Mike L

What the rules makers are going to have to decide 1) is there a reason for the number requirement? 2) What was the reasoning behind the exception to the numbering requirement? And 3) do we wish to close the loophole currently in the exception that allows this "great innovation" to exist or should the numbering requirement be done away with? Until such time as it seems the end of days must be coming because someone sees fit to make me one of the rules makers, I'll just enforce the rules as written and how my assoc wants it done.

If anyone cares what my opinion is, going to the NCAA wording of a kicking situation must be obvious is what is needed in NFHS.

I agree that this "great innovation" is predicated on the numbering exception. That is the only thing that allows this to exist, otherwise it would be just a variation of a spread offense.

That being said the rules committee can close the loophole by not allowing the numbering exceptions, with an exception possibly at center. That is the only key position that might require a numbering exception.

[ajmc]

Perhaps I've been trying too hard to be subtle, daggo66, but I don't need to "read everything" to recognize bad manners. As I've tried to state, I don't give a rat's *** about the A-11 offense, and am prepared to deal with whatever the rules people tell me to deal with.

This is an Official's Forum and in the same way I would try and tactfully point out an obvious mistake to a fellow official on the field, I tried to do the same, long ago, when the tone of some of my fellow officials started getting out of hand. Bad manners reflect on all of us. No matter what you may think the justification might be, throwing a (verbal) hissy fit is unbecoming and poor behavior. Justifying bad behavior by shouting and trying to defend it has never and will never work. These personal attacks and all this ridiculous speculation about who's motivated by what is BS, plain and simple. It doesn't strengthen your argument and only makes you (and possibly by extension the rest of us) look petty and low class.

It's not a "holier than thou" opinion I've been trying to get through to some. It's more a, "You're acting like a spoiled child and making yourself, and by association, the rest of us look bad", wake up and knock it off.

If you are unhappy with the way proponents of the A-11 have acted and want to present an opposing opinion, knock yourself out, but do it without lowering your standards.. Remember, however, this is an "Officials Forum" and your behavior reflects on the rest of us, so act like an adult and behave like someone with something serious to add to the discussion.

Take this as constructive criticism and "if the shoe fits, put it on". If not, ignore it.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Perhaps I've been trying too hard to be subtle, daggo66, but I don't need to "read everything" to recognize bad manners. As I've tried to state, I don't give a rat's *** about the A-11 offense, and am prepared to deal with whatever the rules people tell me to deal with.

This is an Official's Forum and in the same way I would try and tactfully point out an obvious mistake to a fellow official on the field, I tried to do the same, long ago, when the tone of some of my fellow officials started getting out of hand. Bad manners reflect on all of us. No matter what you may think the justification might be, throwing a (verbal) hissy fit is unbecoming and poor behavior. Justifying bad behavior by shouting and trying to defend it has never and will never work. These personal attacks and all this ridiculous speculation about who's motivated by what is BS, plain and simple. It doesn't strengthen your argument and only makes you (and possibly by extension the rest of us) look petty and low class.

It's not a "holier than thou" opinion I've been trying to get through to some. It's more a, "You're acting like a spoiled child and making yourself, and by association, the rest of us look bad", wake up and knock it off.

If you are unhappy with the way proponents of the A-11 have acted and want to present an opposing opinion, knock yourself out, but do it without lowering your standards.. Remember, however, this is an "Officials Forum" and your behavior reflects on the rest of us, so act like an adult and behave like someone with something serious to add to the discussion.

Take this as constructive criticism and "if the shoe fits, put it on". If not, ignore it.

When a guy proclaims that his offense prevents serious injuries..... I mean reduces serious injuries..... I meant produced no serious injuries.... (get the point?) without providing one shred of documented research to support his mysteriously diminishing claims, then I will call him out.

I don't care if you or anyone else thinks I am acting childish, boorish, unprofessional and/or any other adjective you can come up with.

I will state my opinion whether you like it or not.

You have the opportunity to ignore it as well...........

[daggo66]

You are way off base. It is absolutely essential to understand someone's motivation when taking a position in any discussion. The fact that KB is selling the A-11 and trying to make money from it is something that must be considered when discussing the topic. If his only motivation was to improve his team and share it with fellow coaches, why in the world would he come on this web site and discuss it with us? I don't care about the A-11. If someone in my area ran it (as was rumored but never happened this past season) I would officiate it to the letter of the rule. Keep in mind that the letter of the rule could end up with otherwise eligible receivers being ineligible because of their "initial" position on the LOS. I could absolutely predict that you could have a case of a slot receiver starting on the LOS, then realizing he should be off the line and stepping back causing him to remain ineligible. Once that call is made I can also predict a USC because the coach is never going to understand that. In my opinion that one instance is what makes the A-11 difficult to officiate. Not only do you have to quickly pick up who IS eligible, you have to remember throughout the down who IS NOT. How many times was something like this missed during Piedmont games? One of KB's comments was that they weren't called for ineligible downfield any more than normal. Fine, but how many were missed? From the videos it appears the crews were also extremely liberal with the 7 yard requirement as well as being set for one second. If it were my game I would err on the longer end of one second to give my wings time to acquire all the eligibles.

[KurtBryan]

Dear Officials:

As always, your professional opinions are appreciated and respected.

Yes it is true the CIF suggested we write a position paper on the A-11, and yes, we tried to ably present both sides, and also put forth a lot of facts regarding a variety of items, based on two-years using the offense from our program, other programs, plus feedback from actual Officials who worked A-11games, etc.

Best of luck in the New Year 2009, I can hardly believe we are Nine years into the new Century.

Cheers, KB

[asdf]

Originally Posted by KurtBryan

Dear Officials:

As always, your professional opinions are appreciated and respected.

Yes it is true the CIF suggested we write a position paper on the A-11, and yes, we tried to ably present both sides, and also put forth a lot of facts regarding a variety of items, based on two-years using the offense from our program, other programs, plus feedback from actual Officials who worked A-11games, etc.

Best of luck in the New Year 2009, I can hardly believe we are Nine years into the new Century.

Cheers, KB

MY TRANSLATION

My offense was never approved as previously claimed. I was advised that my offense did not violate any current written rule, but it did exploit an unintended loophole.

Now that the rules committe will actually meet to discuss my offense I have been advised to prove to the rules committee that I did not intentionally exploit the loophole.

***********************************************

Again.... why the need to justify your offense if it has already been approved?

[KurtBryan]

Originally Posted by asdf

MY TRANSLATION

My offense was never approved as previously claimed. I was advised that my offense did not violate any current written rule, but it did exploit an unintended loophole.

Now that the rules committe will actually meet to discuss my offense I have been advised to prove to the rules committee that I did not intentionally exploit the loophole.

***********************************************

Again.... why the need to justify your offense if it has already been approved?

Please read the entire paper, and I am sorry you do not believe it, or might not believe the lay out of the process we went through, it is extremely detailed and all listed in our paper. As listed, we already underwent everything listed in the paper, names, details, and process all detailed.

Again this is for the rules committee to review, the paper will allow each member of the NFHS committee to look at the process we went through and the facts and results of the offense.

*Oh by the way, an earlier poster said the A-11 was not legal in the NFL, However, as Tennessee Titans Head Coach Jeff Fisher found out and revealed in his interview with ESPN Magazine this week, the A-11 IS LEGAL in the NFL. Yes, that is correct.

NFL Players # 50 - 79 can report as Eligible, then they must sit out one play, so the Tennessee Titans are working on a package allowing them to run it. That would be great.

Happy New Year, KB

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by KurtBryan

Dear Officials:

As always, your professional opinions are appreciated and respected.

Yes it is true the CIF suggested we write a position paper on the A-11, and yes, we tried to ably present both sides, and also put forth a lot of facts regarding a variety of items, based on two-years using the offense from our program, other programs, plus feedback from actual Officials who worked A-11games, etc.

Best of luck in the New Year 2009, I can hardly believe we are Nine years into the new Century.

Cheers, KB

What is CIF? You said that you tried to "present both sides". I don't recall reading anything negative in your position paper. Did I miss something? I don't view the "feedback from actual Officials" as objective unless it is something that came directly from them. Could you also please post all of your data from the study you conducted regarding injuries? I would also be interested in the control data.

[Theisey]

Originally Posted by KurtBryan

Dear Officials:

....

Best of luck in the New Year 2009, I can hardly believe we are Nine years into the new Century.

Cheers, KB

Sorry coach, but the new century actually started in 2001.

I tell you what, I'll become a believer in the A-11 offense if you can get the NFL to let my Detroit Lions use it next season. God knows they need all the help they can get. :}

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Theisey

Sorry coach, but the new century actually started in 2001.

That's why he's right: ninth year of the new century (and millennium). Use your fingers if you need to.