The Snake Oil Salesman Is At It Again

[TXMike]

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".

[umpirebob71]

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

[BktBallRef]

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.

[JugglingReferee]

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?

[TXMike]

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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

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.

You believe everything he wrote?

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

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

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

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?

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

[waltjp]

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.

[daggo66]

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?

[ajmc]

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.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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

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?

[HossHumard]

Originally Posted by TXMike

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.

Whaa?

[TXMike]

[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!

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

I'm sorry but I must have missed the thread where the moderators made YOU, GOD of the Football Forum.

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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 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.