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.

[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.

[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

[JugglingReferee]

I wish I was a moderator on this site. HAHAHA

[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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by 3SPORT

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.

C'mon coach, answer the question.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

I guess I'm just surprised that someone who tags their offerings with reference to Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King would be so comfortable with using the tactics of personal attacks and unprofessional behavior, both of which were used against them.

All this flack about, "What is the spirit and intent of the rule you are exploiting?" is all a matter of perception, and not all perceptions are alike. Does the A-11 offense seek to exploit the current rule on "Player formation and numbering requirements NF:7.2.5.b.exception)? Absolutely, is that necessarily a bad thing? That all depends, on whether the rule makers decide the intended exploitation crosses the line.

The current rule is a perfect example of a rule being adjusted OVER TIME to deal with the reality previous adjustments created. There was a time where numbers and positions didn't matter. As the game evolved that was changed to reflect the numbering requirements we see today, for multiple reasons including the ability to monitor eligible receivers in light of expanding formations and strategies.

At the High School level this caused additional concern because it limited teams from mixing their better athletes in certain positional combinations. As is still the case today, not all High Schools have an unlimited stable of "better" athletes and a lot of schools play a lot of their better athletes in multiple positions, by necessity unique to the HS level.

Part of the logic behind the current "Exception" was to allow these "better" athletes, whose skill and talents called for their primary roles to be as eligible receivers, to participate in SK formations. Reality is that all rules draw a line, and staying below that line is acceptable while moving a micro distance over the line becomes unacceptable. That's a reality of rules, all rules.

Games (of which HS football still is) are often played staying as close to that line as possible, without stepping over it (ie. exploiting, circumventing, pushing, expanding, etc). Pushing the boundries of current rules often causes the rules to expand when the decision is made that expanding the current rule is better, for the game, than rigidly enforcing the current version. (Exampled by Rosa sitting and Martin walking)

What some may honestly view as a travesty, it appears Coach Bryant may view as a continuation of the purpose of the current exception to allow "better" athletes to participate in more opportunity. He may be wrong, may be dead wrong but being wrong doesn't make him dishonest, deceitful or some evil element worthy of personal attack. Until the rule makers declare it wrong, it isn't automatically wrong.

When you drift from expressing opposition to this, or any, situation, as it applies to the nature of the game to personally attacking, mocking and demonizing the individual who happens to hold a different perception, you weaken your own credibility. In the same way we stand strong by allowing an emotional coach to vent his frustrations, then calmly explaining what we have decided will prevail despite all the ancillary and unnecessary theatrics and emotion, seems the best way to be successful with an argument. We get to decide if, or when, any argument becomes excessive, and the rules makers have total control over this question either by acting on it, or choosing not to.

Either you set the tone, or you react to someone else setting his tone and resorting to personal attack, mocking, unsubstantiated accusations and allegations is a lot lower tone than what we are normally recognized as setting. It's a level we need not fall to.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I guess I'm just surprised that someone who tags their offerings with reference to Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King would be so comfortable with using the tactics of personal attacks and unprofessional behavior, both of which were used against them.

...

The current rule is a perfect example of a rule being adjusted OVER TIME to deal with the reality previous adjustments created. There was a time where numbers and positions didn't matter. As the game evolved that was changed to reflect the numbering requirements we see today, for multiple reasons including the ability to monitor eligible receivers in light of expanding formations and strategies.

...

Part of the logic behind the current "Exception" was to allow these "better" athletes, whose skill and talents called for their primary roles to be as eligible receivers, to participate in SK formations. Reality is that all rules draw a line, and staying below that line is acceptable while moving a micro distance over the line becomes unacceptable. That's a reality of rules, all rules.

...

Either you set the tone, or you react to someone else setting his tone and resorting to personal attack, mocking, unsubstantiated accusations and allegations is a lot lower tone than what we are normally recognized as setting. It's a level we need not fall to.

Maybe this discussion has gotten too personal.

There is a mechanism by which athletes, coaches, officials, etc. can and have used for decades to petition the rules commitee to make changes to the game and it has worked well albeit not as fast as we would like some time. Good example, post scrimmage kick rules.

Never that I can recall has a proposal to alter the rules gone into the New York Times, ESPN, etc. and yet the game has survived.

Coach Bryan is passionate about his evolution and it probably does have benefit for small schools but then again there are 6 and 8 man rules to accomodate those schools and most states recognize there are differences in school sizes, therefore, schools are placed into classifications for competitive reasons. One would hardly expect Piedmont to challenge Concord Delasalle even though they are geographically close for just that reason.

Coach Bryan had approval, yet, he seeks to thrust his evolution upon the masses largely through coercion via the media and that is not a personal attack but does question why he could not work through the system just like every other rule change.