The Snake Oil Salesman Is At It Again
 

From the Desk of Kurt Bryan: Sports, Politics & Entertainment...: A-11 Offense & the Impact on High School Football

Apparently this is what he is submitting to the NFHS in an effort to head off any outlawing of his "product".

I sure hope nobody around here (NE Ohio) tries this nonsense.

Hopefully, the NFHS will rid us of this sham. I know Mr. Dreibelbis, North Carolina High School Athletic Association Director of Officials. will be leading the charge. Either way, I still won't have to contend with it in N.C.

Well done Kurt and Steve for preparing a convincing argument. Not everyone puts this much effort into something of the sort. It seems you certainly went through the proper channels to make your project legal.

The way I see it, the NFHS will either rule or not rule on the legality of the A-11.

If they do rule, then the A-11 is either legal or not legal based on the ruling of the NFHS. Could a state association subsequently allow the A-11?

I the do not rule, then the A-11 is either legal or not legal based on the ruling of each a state association.

Is this accurate?

Wouldn't you put a lot of effort into something that , if it is not successful, means you lose all credibility and a good chunk of change?

In all that verbiage there, they do not even address the fundamental issue which is : what is the purpose for even having a numbering exception.

If someone wants to start a Canadian football league in the US, go for it. If someone wants to start an A-11 league in the US, go for it. But don't try to sneak around the intent of the rules to bastar_ize existing leagues.

You believe everything he wrote?

I disagree. They haven't yet. Why would they now? They'll simply pass or defeat the proposals to limit SKF during obvious kicking situations.

State associations are the final say on interpretations in their state.

States can do whatever the heck they want when it comes to interpretations. The NF has no judicial power to make a state follow all rules if a state has determined something illegal or out of bounds. I was also told that states have much more leeway to be more restrictive when it comes to rules.

All the NF can do is take away a voting right when it comes to new rules and other NF business. If a state does not care, they can take whatever action they like.

Peace

Typical – Kurt again reviews his submission and approval process, and even states that he had “questions regarding was the new offense an unfair act, was it a travesty of the game or deceptive, and was it within the spirit of the rules of the game.”

After reviewing the package they received their answer, “In February 2007 via the telephone, Stearns informed Coach Bryan that the A-11 Offense was indeed legal to use.”

No mention is made about the “spirit of the rules,” and I don’t believe anyone argued here that the A-11 is illegal under the current rules. I do believe we’ll be hearing differently very soon.

Kurt is a carnival huckster. He sees the writing on the wall and knows his sham will be over soon.

Holy crap! Teams that run the A-11 have fewer injuries? If I order within the next 20 minutes will you double the size of my order?

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 else can you hold up as an example of the 'spirit of the rules' being violated that would contradict any of the opinions stated here?

Whaa?

[QUOTE=ajmc;562410]Sadly, some of us are just getting ridiculous about this issue. .....
A proponent of this offense has apparently documented his argument supporting this practice. QUOTE]

So...how many A-11 Installation Manual packages can we sign you up for?


Did you read his "reasoning"? Talk about playing loose with the facts!

I'm sorry but I must have missed the thread where the moderators made YOU, GOD of the Football Forum. http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra.../notworthy.gif http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra.../notworthy.gif http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra.../notworthy.gif http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra.../notworthy.gif http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra.../notworthy.gif

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.

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.

Hhmm, seems like I might have struck some nerves. BasketBallRef, you didn't miss any threads and haven't been appointed nor am I running for "God of the football forum", but just like you, I feel I have some right to complain about things I find distasteful, or excessive. Of course, if that's alright with you.

Like most of the readers of these forums, the whole issue of the A-11 generates some interest and I've paid attention to much of the pros and cons. Personally, I don't think it's a formation that will survive under it's own weight, but it's not up to me whether it does, or not.

Actually, I think some of the negative aspects of this argument, make sense. My problem is with how some opposing opinions have been expressed. 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.

I don't know Coach Bryan, so I don't have any reason to doubt his sincerity, even if I might think he's wrong. From what I've seen, however, he has pursued his advocation of this formation civily, respectfully and ardently. Regardless of whether he will be ultimately proven right, or wrong, he has shown the good manners to remain respectful, despite some good reasons not to.

Step off your high horse for just a moment and consider, just the possibility, you may be simply wrong. Allow me to make a suggestion, one official to another, when you allow your argument to be propped up with unnecessary baggage (insults, personal attacks, speculating about motivation, mocking) all you accomplish is weakening your position.

For the most part, officials as a group, are able to remain calm when emotions and tempers flare, rationally digest all the views of the issue in question, and render an informed decision based on the facts. Jumping to conclusions, screaming and insulting opposite view points are attributes more normally associated with fans. We're usually able to stay above that, or at least should try to.

ajmc, it was a joke. Note the :D at the top of the post.

Your comments were just as excessive, if not more so, than the ones you criticize.

"Spare me all this "spirit of the rules" BS, that seems to apply ONLY when your specific viewpoint is offered. "

You're allowed to voice that others' opinions are BS but someone else can't voice his opinion that this man is a carnival huckster? Sorry but I don't buy that.

"Some of the pure "crap" comments made on this subject are way over the top, and getting worse."

No one made any "pure crap comments." Daggo66 used the term "Holy crap" in humor. I guess you're not a rerun fan of "Eveybody Loses Raymond" or you would better understand.

And I'm sure you didn't mean all the italics and boldface to be attacking, did you?

"I'm going to take a wild guess and assume I've been doing this a lot longer than you....,"

Not sure who you're addressing with this but it's nothing more than arrogance.

In any case, be careful, lest you fall off that high horse you've climbed on. :(

I disagree with your point that KB deserves respect. He claims that his only intention is to allow everyone to use this revolutionary new offense he created to help the small schools compete. The bottom line is that he is selling this concept. That fact destroys his crediblity in my opinion and opens him up to attack. The only reason, again in my opinion, that he has done all of his so called research is to sell more product. If he just went about his business with the A-11, no one would know about it outside of his league and the Fed really wouldn't care. However he obviously wants to make money off of this so he has to make it as public as possible, while at the same time making sure that the NFHS doesn't make it illegal. IMO establishing an entire offensive according to a rule exception is wrong and clearly not in the spirit of what that exception was created for. What I am strongly against though is his entire approach. He originally came on this board pretending to see if any officials had heard about this exciting new offense and what we thought of it. He was fishing for testimonials. Eventually it was discovered what was going on and he disappeared from here. I applaud KB's ability to discover how to exploit that rule exception. My issue is that he is selling it while acting as if he is not.

I'm sure all of us as officials have seen various "strange" formations both legal and illegal.

The difference with the A-11 is it is being sold where Kurt Bryan becomes the Billy Mays of football formations. He has taken essentially an exception in the rules for convienience of bringing in the long snapper and exploited it, then, pimped it wherever possible as the savior of football as we know it. Seems like every time you look at the news there is an A-11 story. It even made the New York Times.

If I didn't know better Coach Bryan's motivation is to make himself known as a football innovator or better still he is looking to move on to bigger and better coaching assignments leaving us high school officials in his wake with what I opine is a rather difficult to officiate offense.

Would it have made sense for Piedmont to run that offense with whatever success they could gain and leave it at that?

Maybe yes, maybe no. What relevance does this have?

Guess you missed his numerous "LOUD MINORITY" rants.

Is this a good example of an oxymoron?
I'm not addressing the yahs and nays of this topic, or the merits of ajmc's statements, just the belief that one who uses the "experience or age" angle to back up their opinion, is usually operating from a perceived weak position.

Or maybe its the anti-authority streak in me...I've just never liked the "I'm right cause I've been doing it longer" response...

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

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.

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.

This too shall pass. (no pun intended)

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.

That's the best defense you can offer for your arrogance?

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?

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.

I have yet to see the A-11 up close and personal. I suspect I will this next season as some of the local coaches in Indiana have started talking about it. As long as the coach lets us know ahead of time and we, as a crew, can talk about it before hand, I'm not too worried.

Is it in the spirit of the game...probably not. But you always have this issue when addressing unconventional plays. I think the challange is for us, as officials, to think of the best way to cover this type of offense should we see it in 2009. I think that is a far better course of action as opposed to complaining about it or lobbying NFHS or state associations to outlaw the formation.

totally separate from the A-11 issue, i'm intrigued by this scenario. Mostly I'm having a difficult time seeing what the potential advantage to be gained by this loophole would be.

are you talking about a team lining up for a field goal or a point after?

how would volleyball serving the ball forward then scrambling for it be any more advantageous than simply throwing a forward pass? I can see that you'd have the "bonus" of the ball being live after it hits the ground. (as opposed to an incomplete forward pass, which is of course dead)...but is the offense any more likely to fall on that batted ball than the defense is?

when would it make sense to do this? If you're lined up to kick a point after, the odds of recovering the volleyball serve couldn't have been any greater than simply lining up to go for two, right?

if it was a short field goal try, would you sacrifice an "easy" three points for the risk/reward of recovering a loose ball in the endzone?

I freely admit that I could be missing something about this play that would give the offense an (unfair) advantage. assuming that it would behoove the offense to do that, how about this?

holder takes snap, kicker moves in directly behind holder. holder turns and fires a backwards pass off the kickers helmet. ball rebounds forward. as it would in the volleyball serve scenario--granted you couldn't control it as well as a volleyball serve, but you could probably get it forward.

rules wise, I don't think there'd be anything illegal here, at least according to the NCAA book. there is the rule against advancing a planned loose ball in the vicinity of the snapper (fumblerooski). but if you cleared the snapper with this ricochet backwards pass, I think you'd be ok on 7-1-7.

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.

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...

Conformist. :D

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

Newmdref, I appreciate where you're coming from, but you're still thinking like a player. That will pass. Many of us, myself included, have a similare backround with the exception that I can add 20 years of officiating experience to that resume. You've come in rather late on this whole mess. Go back and read the many posts, including the ones from KB himself. Then go to his own web site and read the drivel there. There is nothing remotely slanderous in any of these posts. KB purposely walked up to a quiet hornet's nest and started poking it with a stick. I was the first to compare him to Billy Mayes. It is a well deserved comparison.

Tom, point taken and I agree with your eval. of me with regard to player vs. official and I am here to try and learn that "Official" perspective of the game but its tough when the forum is consumed with in fighting about non-sense or why you can't say NFL as opposed to National Football League and the like. The statement you made about KB poking the nest is exactly what he wants thus my comment/point #1 in my last posting. I only bring up the slander issue because I had a family member who started and ran a national subscribed website, un-related to sports, and was shut down, sued and even subscribers were sued for comments similar in nature to the ones being made on here. Just letting people know to be careful about what you say about an individual on a public forum thats all.

Keeping mouth shut and sitting in the corner

I'm afraid, newmdref, the sage advice of, "if you can't say anything nice, say nothing" has been completely forgotten by way too many of us, way too often. Part of that may be the fault of the annonimity of the keyboard and the instant nature of today's communication capabilities.

It's refreshing to see that a "new ref" still understands the benefits of simple manners and civil behavior, as well as the potential negative consequences of allowing emotions to guide behavior.

I've long maintained common sense may be the most critical attribute someone can bring to officiating, and that certainly includes how each of us decides to respond to challenge. You seem pointed in a good direction

That is crap. You obviously do not know the history of this person. You do not know how this person has basically lied about NF approval or the positions of the NF on this issue. Then when it has been suggested that the motives are more than "making the game better" he claims he is not trying to sell anything and his motives are simply pure. Well that is not the position of KB and this is why many here have pointed this out over and over again. And this is the reason many people have gone after him (he has actually posted here to defend his offense).

Also being a good official means you apply experience and know when to not look like you know everything, when you have achieved nothing. ;)

Peace

checking in
 

Dear Officials:

It was suggested we write a comprehensive position paper about the A-11 for the NFHS rules committee, which we did.

Regarding the erroneous, "spirit of the rules" comment above, please take the time to review the position paper again submitted for the NFHS rules committee.

One of the items reviewed (in addition to many other listed in the paper or not listed) was the item of whether or not the offense within the spirit of the rules - as is clearly stated in the paper. It was found, yes, it is within the "spirit of the rules", and it is NOT a travesty of the game, or an unsporting act, etc. See below in bold one item pulled from the paper.

In January 2007, the coaches submitted a comprehensive package detailing the A-11
Offense and the rule interpretations associated with it to Mr. Bob Colgate at the NFHS.
The package contained specific rule interpretations about the SKF, the application of the
numbering exception, a host of possible formations, various shifting ideas, and questions
regarding was the new offense an unfair act, was it a travesty of the game or deceptive,
and was it within the spirit of the rules of the game…among other items as well.

The reason we detailed the entire review process we underwent, is so that every single person on the NFHS rules committee knows the exact process we went through upon submitting everthing to the NFHS, and then a detailed review by the CIF state association before it was ruled legal.

And to those who think we did not undergo that process - please know we would not put forth any document that was not true to the NFHS committee -it would be crazy to do that.

We interviewed coaches, players, officials, and trainers for the paper, and we also drew upon testimonials from those professions about the A-11 for the paper, or items relative to it.

Lastly, I appreciate all of your professional opinions and thank you.

KB:)

Link to read A-11 position paper: http://kurtbryan.blogspot.com/

Why the need for a position paper when your offense has already been approved?

answer
 

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:)

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............

I agree! ;)

The king of double-speak strikes again! The so-called erroneous spirit of the rules comment was his own comment!

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.

I have a serious question that I don't believe has been asked. What happens if someone decides to use the A-11 without purchasing the installation package? It certainly doesn't take a genious to figure it out. The youth leagues in MD do not have a numbering requirement for eligibles and therefore have been running the A-11 since the beginning.

You are absolutely correct, I don't know the history, or motivation, of "this person", which is why I would find it reprehensible to defame and denigrate him. Even if I did know his history, and even his motivation, I hope I would have the class to limit my opinions to the subject matter at hand rather than slide down to angry personal attacks. I haven't read everything he has written on this subject, but I have read numerous attempts on his part to explain his position to a hostile audience, without resorting to lowering his offerings to the personal level of some of those expressed in opposition.

Somehow, he seems to have managed to control his emotions to the point he tries to present a rational argument supporting his position. This may come as a shock to you, but disagreeing with a message doesn't require being disagreeable with the messenger. As for "crap", a perfect example is resorting to character assassination based on speculation and suspicion and the childish notion that denegrating the messenger somehow weakens his message.

As for the A-11 Offense, I couldn't care less what people think of it, other than their comments adding to my understanding of it, what it requires and whether it violates any existing rules. I appreciate the concerns some have, although I think most of those thus far expressed are somewhat exaggerated. At present, I do not see where this "loophole" violates existing rules, but requires a very high level of compliance with several other rules which causes me to question it's overall practicality. If those rules are subsequently amended to prohibit this "loophole", fine no problem, then we'll all deal with the revisions.

Personally I'm simply disappointed with the with the tone and temperment of some responses objecting to this formation. They speak poorly for the demeanor and manners of officials, in general. Picking apart previous statements to suggest they mean something that may, or may not, have ever entered the speakers mind based on pure speculation is, dare I suggest, "crap" of the first order.

What I may, or may not, have achieved is simply none of your concern and has nothing to do with this issue, or this discussion, much as your achievements or failures have no practical interest to me. I would appreciate any useful detail anyone can provide about the management of this formation and practical advice regarding mechanics that would be helpful in monitoring the eligibility of receivers.

Until such time the rules are adjusted to prohibit this formation, I'll consider it legal and focus on preparing for it and dealing with it. I haven't yet heard all the questions, much less know all the answers, and whining and complaining hasn't helped shorten that gap. How close I come to, " look(ing) like you know everything" is largely a matter of how ignorant those doing the looking actually are.

Perhaps it would be better that you do gather all the information before you declare your holier than thou opinion. You really need to read all this from the very beginning which started last year. Keep in mind this is a forum of officials. KB joined here hoping to get an endorsement. He stayed as we foolishly argued with him. I say foolishly because he learned from us and then used his uncany ability of double speak to spin certain comments to his advantage.

KB came up with this offense and made sure that he could use it legally. It was somewhat successful for his team and they continued to use it. Why isn't that the end of the story? He probably could have flown under the radar with this for the rest of his career. First and foremost he is selling a product and he tried using this forum and it's members in the process. Am I defaming him? No, I am merely stating the facts. Don't take my word for it, read it all for yourself.

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.

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...........

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.

end of 2008
 

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?

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.

Oh, word the software here doesn't allow.

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. :}

The field goal was where it was used, but one could easily imagine other scenarios. 4th down or a try would've been the most attractive situations.

It's advantageous because all players are eligible to recover, and if your linemen release downfield they're likely to overwhelm the defense in their way. And there'd be no rule against their knocking defenders away, and they could even push (though not pull or grasp) opponents with their hands in a personal attempt to get at the ball. Plus, the linemen are likely to outweigh their opponents in the secondary.

But not accurately enough to allow for a mass charge of your line after the ball.

Robert

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

The forward pass existed longer before eligible receiver shirt numbering than it has since.

Again..... 3rd time.....

Why the need for the paper if your offense has already been approved?

Why does the NFHS committee need to look at the process if they were already party to the process ??? (approval)

OK, now I get your question.

Answer: There was Not a need for it, just told it would be a good idea to present our position since some people will bring opposing views to the table.

Thanks, KB :)

You obviously do not know the history and my opinion about Kurt or anyone is not based on anything other then their actions. Kurt has misrepresented many people's positions in order to further his position on this offense. If anything is reprehensible, that should be the case. He has even gone far to suggest the NF has "approved" of the offense when many people on the committee have commented and suggested this violated the spirit and intent of the rules and the rules would be at the very least revisited. And Kurt did not do this on just an article or with a reporter; he did so on this site and the National Federation's site where officials and coaches discuss rules and interpretations. And if that bothers you, then this place is really going to be hard for you to stick around if challenging people's opinions and motives cannot be stated.

I know little about Kurt's emotions, but he does come here often to defend or lie about what people have said about his offense. It is clear that he is trying to sell something and that is what has a lot of people on his case. And the more and more we talk to Kurt, that becomes clearer and clearer. Kurt has on several occasions tried to suggest he was not selling any books or any information about his offense. He has said that he is only trying to promote the game of football. Well that is not true and this thread has exposed that very point of view.

Actually for many people, we do not care that much about the offense either. I have officiated the offense, but I feel the rules are going to change to resemble the NCAA and NFL Rules that would make this situation illegal.

It is clear that you do not know the history or previous comments made by Kurt. You do not know how he has misrepresented others either on the NF board or officials in their opposition or support of this so called offense. And if that offends you when I say that, I guess you are just going to be mad. I do not think I have done anything to Kurt that he has not done to himself. If he did not want the opinions of others, then you do not come to a website and share those opinions.

Now Rut, KB has done told us the NFL permits this so don't you go a-saying they don't. (Can someone please tell me why a team like the Tennessee Titans that is basically destroying everyone they play, would even tinker around with this lunacy? I think someone is playing mind games)

And KB- you, once again, skirt the issue by saying that because 6 guys could wear ineligible numbers but report in and be eligible, that makes it just like what you are doing. BS! In the NFL the eligibles are identifiied to everyone after they report in, not 1 second before the snap like in your little game.

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

ESPN Mag quote - from Titans coach Jeff Fisher, the other co-chair of the NFL's competition committee says "He has no interest in modifying the rules to allow for a full blown A11, becasue it would alter the game too radically. No matter. Bryan and Humphries have twisted and bent the fundamentals, philosophy and geometry of football."

Guys I am seeing the light and the root of your frustration. Fundamentals, philosophy and geometry are not the only things being twisted and bent.
Certainly sounds to me like its legal and Jeff loves it. :)

I would love to see it! By the time the 6 players got set and reported you'd have a DOG every time. Anyway I thought the whole purpose of the A-11 was to help small schools who had small players compete against larger schools with larger players. (does the size of the nearest high school affect growth rates?) My guess is that the average offensive lineman is 6'5" 300#'s. If you need someone bigger you don't need to change your offense, you just sign someone bigger. Everything in KB's position paper is designed with one thing in mind, keeping everyone's attention away from rule 7.2.5b.

THat's freakin' hilarious!!!! http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...es/roflmao.gif

"cause he's skeered...skeered they're gonna shut him down!

wow
 

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

The bending and twisting has been going on since he first arrived on officiating forums.

The outcry started when he tried to use the sites as a conduit to sell his product.

Kurt,

This is an officials forum and you are not getting what you want so wise up and go away!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

feedback
 

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

I wish I was a moderator on this site. HAHAHA

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.

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.

C'mon coach, answer the question.

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.

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.

Part 2
 

Another reason you know little or nothing about football if you truly believe what you are actually saying. The rule was put in place to allow players that would not normally play in certain positions and were the more skilled players to play during special teams. The rule was not put in place to run on a regular basis. I do not care if it is a bad thing or not, Kurt is using a rule to exploit an unintended purpose the rule was put in place for. If exploiting a portion of the rule is a bad or good thing that is for the NF to decide. But for the record, many states have already outlawed these offenses and that will not likely change a lot because they feel the offense is taking an unnecessary advantage of a situation.

You really need to stop trying to compare laws that affected people's liberty, to a rule in a football game that if the NF was abolished tomorrow would not make a bit of difference in many people's lives. The facts you keep bring that up in this context takes away further your position and how little you know about this matter. You obviously do not know the difference between a disagreement about a rule and how that plays into professionalism, so stop trying to compare apples and oranges. To compare a singular football rule to civil rights is absurd on so many levels, to explain it to you would be futile.

Here is why you do not know what you are talking about. Kurt has claimed on many occasions that his offense did not allow for serious injuries in football, that small schools could compete against bigger schools and that officials loved to work the offense. Here is the problem with all those statements, those are not really true.

First of all you have to take more than a 2 year experiment to claim that players are prevented from serious injury because of your offense. Then the article that he referenced, said "Spread Offenses" made the game safer. And it would help if you had more than one team to bolster that claim. There was no study referenced or the findings in the research which any social scientist or medical scientist would require before making such a simple claim. Then that study would be up for peer review and you would need to be able to repeat the study over and over again based on the methodology of the study. None of those things were shown or proven by Kurt.

Then he claimed that the NF "Approved" his offense. That was not true at all. He even claimed on another website that my state "Approved" his offense. Both were the furthest thing from the truth. All the NF did was give information to Kurt that he was legal under the current rules. And soon after, states across the country started to outlaw the offense by saying that it was outside the spirit and intent of the rules. Then my state only told us what to look for and how to officiate the offense. The IHSA never suggested the offense was "Approved" but said that if they are not perfect, to call infractions on the offense if players do not set up right or they do not pause for the appropriate time before the snap. And the one team that ran this offense that I know of in the state, lost their first 3 games to decent teams. They ran through their conference which they had already dominated for years (they are the only conference where everyone plays each other twice), then lost in the first round by a blowout. And when it was clear that committee members were talking publicly about their feelings on the offense, Kurt made it sound like the NF Committee Chairperson had clearly "Approved" the offense and it was a done issue. Which is why people have constantly asked Kurt why he needed to write a paper to the NF if the NF had already “Approved” the offense?

I was also in a Newspaper Article from the Chicago Tribune back in September when a reporter called me after I had worked a game between a team that ran the A-11 Offense and a conventional offensive team. There were many articles written by the Chicago Tribune and I was referenced as an official and Kurt was referenced and a NF Committee person was referenced. It was clear then that the NF was clearly going to review the issue when they got a chance if you read the quotes of the NF Committee person. And it was clear that even my position I did not have a major problem with the offense as an official enforcing the rules, but there were some people that were going to change the rule if you read the article.

Kurt also claimed that he was not selling anything or trying to benefit in anyway. The article here shows that to not be true on any level.


You keep talking about attacking and mocking, but I would like you to show one comment I made where I did that. If attacking by your definition is challenging someone's words that they put on a public forum, then I am guilty as hell. But in my opinion you are not attacking someone personally when you are pointing out the holes in their argument or take a different position. If the first thing is out of bounds, then you need to go away from here right now. We debate rules and interpretations all the time and there are hardly ever personal comments about the person, unless it becomes an issue with their integrity. And in this case Kurt's intergrity has been in question because he has constantly said he was not selling anything. And all the comments I have read have pointed that out and did not say much about Kurt personally. But when you lie about your position and you use other people to misrepresent that position, then people have every right to point that out. I am sorry, but that is life. And there is nothing unprofessional or out of bounds on this site or in the world of officiating to make those kinds of comments or claims. Kurt has put himself out there to allow people to comment on his positions. If he did nothing but stay away from officiating sites, then he would not have to worry about what we have to say about his offense. This is all caused by Kurt.

Lastly you have admitted that you are a second year official. You have very little posts on this site. You clearly do not understand history and you clearly do not know what is professional. I have been here for a little over 10 years (longer than my start date says BTW) and I have been officiating much longer. It is never unprofessional as an official or coach to point out the motives of a person when they have lied and misrepresented other people's words or positions or have said one thing but cannot back up those claims. I have been on the receiving end of comments before and the comments here are extremely tame compared to comments made to me and others on many other disagreements. If you do not like the way Kurt was treated, that is your right to feel that way. But you are not the moderator of this site and you clearly are not educated (is that a personal attack :rolleyes:) on what has been said just about this issue alone. You even admitted such a thing in previous statements.

Peace

Great post JR!

Kurt - Still no answer to my question posted?

This thread has gotten WAY of topic. The biggest clue is when Rut writes a novel about black history and someone's view of topics include personal attacks.

Mods, please shut this one down.

When people are uneducated about many things and bring up a particular topic, they need to be set straight. If you do not like my response, you do not have to read them. And when someone compares a completely unrelated issue to another (disagreement about a silly rule), that also needs to be made clear. That has nothing to with Black History, that has to do with someone's ignorance (which means they are unaware or uneducated) about the words they speak.

Peace

Have a good year and be well. ;)

That may be because Coach Bryan isn't looking for a rule revision. His position, which has thusfar not been opposed, is that his "idea" complies with current rules. His reaction seems a response to try and negate all those who have unilaterally decided it to be in violation of the current code.

There is significant speculation that the extent of opposition to this strategy will, or at least should, expand or revise the current rule, or official interpretations, to address this innovation, which has yet to be officially declared illegal. Until the Rule makers speak, everything is just speculation and opinion, and we can only hope the discussion keeps a civil tone.