The Snake Oil Salesman Is At It Again

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by daggo66

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.

That paper apparently did not do a lot, because there are current members of the NF committee that seem to want to address this issue or have openly suggested they will do what they can to change the current rule.

And this is another example of how this offense has not been "approved." The only person I have ever read that uses that language is Kurt.

Peace

[KurtBryan]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That paper apparently did not do a lot, because there are current members of the NF committee that seem to want to address this issue or have openly suggested they will do what they can to change the current rule.

And this is another example of how this offense has not been "approved." The only person I have ever read that uses that language is Kurt.

Peace

Hi Jrutledge:

The position paper has yet to be distributed, it is going out the first week of January to everybody in the NFHS.

And to answer the question above about 'skirting' a rule...we are not skirting a rule, as the Chairman of the NFHS made perfectly clear, and we have listed in our opening quote on the front page of the paper, we are running a legal offense.

Happy New Year to all of you.

KB

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by KurtBryan

Hi Jrutledge:

The position paper has yet to be distributed, it is going out the first week of January to everybody in the NFHS.

And to answer the question above about 'skirting' a rule...we are not skirting a rule, as the Chairman of the NFHS made perfectly clear, and we have listed in our opening quote on the front page of the paper, we are running a legal offense.

Happy New Year to all of you.

KB

Why do you need to send out a paper if the offense was already "approved?"

Why do you need to keep telling us what the Chairperson said if the offense was already "approved?" If the offense is approved, what are you worried about? Oh I get it, the rules still might be changed and you do not have the support you claim to have had to keep the rules the same. I get it, now. And the fact that I keep pointing this out, solidifies that I have personally attacked you, or were unprofessional because I see through the game.

Thanks for playing.

Ajmc, Now do you see what I am talking about?

Peace

[3SPORT]

Originally Posted by KurtBryan

And to answer the question above about 'skirting' a rule...we are not skirting a rule, as the Chairman of the NFHS made perfectly clear, and we have listed in our opening quote on the front page of the paper, we are running a legal offense.
KB

I didn't say you were skirting the rule, I asked you to answer a direct question.

What is the spirit and intent of the Scrimmage Kick Formation and the numbering exception that is part of that rule?

Just answer my question.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by KurtBryan

Hi Jrutledge:

The position paper has yet to be distributed, it is going out the first week of January to everybody in the NFHS.

And to answer the question above about 'skirting' a rule...we are not skirting a rule, as the Chairman of the NFHS made perfectly clear, and we have listed in our opening quote on the front page of the paper, we are running a legal offense.

Happy New Year to all of you.

KB

Skirting the rule it is not. Simply this is a creative way around the original spirit and intent of the numbering exception.

The spirit and intent of the numbering exception was to facilitate bringing in the long snapper. NFHS chose some liberal wording that allows the numbering exception on any down. Kurt Bryan has chosen to liberalize the exception and simply make a travesty of the game which several states so judged.

Yes, it is legal according to the rule as written today and hopefully the powers that be will see around the publicity campaign and restore order.