The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Football (https://forum.officiating.com/football/)
-   -   Taking On A Pack Of Viscous Hyenas (https://forum.officiating.com/football/50700-taking-pack-viscous-hyenas.html)

asdf Tue Jan 06, 2009 07:06pm

What's going to sell more videos?

The A-11 is "approved".

The A-11 is "technically legal".

If you really believe what you wrote about him in the above post, then you have to believe that he is ignorant or unintelligent.

I have my opinions about coach bryan. Neither of the previous are a part of them.

zebra295 Tue Jan 06, 2009 09:02pm

Okay
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by asdf (Post 565403)
What's going to sell more videos?

The A-11 is "approved".

The A-11 is "technically legal".

If you really believe what you wrote about him in the above post, then you have to believe that he is ignorant or unintelligent.

I have my opinions about coach bryan. Neither of the previous are a part of them.

The discussion was about calling someone a "liar" due to representations of being "approved" versus only being declared "legal". In providing some "reason" to tone down the rhetoric of calling someone a liar, an actual dictionary definition was used and pointed to very little difference between the A-11 being declared "legal" by the FED or claimed "approved" by the FED.

Its unfair to interject "technically legal" into the discussion, unless you know of an instance where the FED has formally declared something "technically legal within the rules" before. Even though you think this may be the case with the A-11, it is a non-debatable fact, the FED declared the A-11 "legal and within the rules".

I don't think Bryan is ignorant or unintelligent, but I do think it is "reasonable" to conclude a high school coach who has "never submitted an offense for FED approval" understood that the FED saying it is within the current rules and therefore "legal" also meant "approved" by the governing body.

If your point it that "legal" instead of "approved" would mean more manual sales, they almost the same thing, so you have to be talking about a miniscule difference in advantage for potential sales. Maybe we can get that Yale professor who figured out the 16,000 combinations that can happen at the snap with the A-11 (California High School's Offensive Scheme Adds Randomness to Football: Scientific American) to chime on this topic!

The point trying to be made is, it seems like a good part of the rancor is based on reading too much into the supposed intentions of Kurt Bryan, almost to the point where he is gaining almost mythical abilities. Kinda like, does it really make sense he could manage "to work his con game on a writer for ESPN" to be part of a cover story for ESPN The Magazine? A high school coach mind-warping the poor helpless major sports publication writers of America? Way too much credit guys. Way too much paranioa.

asdf Tue Jan 06, 2009 09:15pm

1) The A-11, in certain states, is technically legal. If coach bryan can use the term "approved", I will use the term "technically". (that dog hunts both properties)

2) Marketing strategy...... "approved" will be used every time.

3) I wouldn't put too much stock in the ESPN article. The guy who wrote it didn't even understand what the heck he was writing about, otherwise he would not have stated that "everybody" is eligible to go downfield. ;)

jimpiano Tue Jan 06, 2009 09:51pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by umpirebob71 (Post 564394)
Calling us a pack viscous (sic) Hyenas isn't libelous? By the way...it's spelled V I C I O U S. If you're going to attempt to insult me, spell it correctly.

Or he could have meant the word viscous.

Do you know what it means?

If you are an official you should know to reference something before you post.

TXMike Tue Jan 06, 2009 09:54pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by zebra295 (Post 565424)
Kinda like, does it really make sense he could manage "to work his con game on a writer for ESPN" to be part of a cover story for ESPN The Magazine? A high school coach mind-warping the poor helpless major sports publication writers of America? Way too much credit guys. Way too much paranioa.

This pretty much proves you are NOT an official cause if you were you would know that some of the most ignorant folks when it comes to the rules of the game are the media writers and broadcasters.

zebra295 Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:49pm

Stupid Sportswriters!
 
Found asdf!!

"Normally used for punts, the rule stated that as long as the player receiving the snap was seven yards behind center, any teammate wearing the jersey of an eligible receiver (between Nos. 1 and 49 or 80 and 89) was permitted to go downfield. Bryan and Humphries had already been noodling with a 3-3-3 superspread base formation that had two sets of three receivers flushed out wide in "pods" close to the numbers, with a center inside flanked by two tight ends, in addition to two QBs in the backfield. Now the scrimmage kick formation rule was saying they could potentially send any of those 11 players out for passes." (An offensive revolution is coming to the NFL. Can anyone stop it? - ESPN The Magazine)

You are right, the first sentence is slightly confusing to that effect! What a gotcha moment!!! Who cares if it was clearly clarified in the very next sentence. We got him! This proves he's a sportswriter! How could someone make such a "major" mistake? Blasphemy!! Its almost as bad as confusing "legal" with "approved" (to give formal or official sanction)!

TXMike, can't wait to read your next masterpiece " The Snake Oil Sportswriter is at it again"!

umpirebob71 Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:46pm

zebra, Please stop. For the love of God, please stop. Whatever your agenda is, it doesn't work for those of us who actually go on the field as officials. Enough is enough.

Forksref Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:54pm

Generally speaking, rules and laws don't tell you what you can do, they tell you what you can't do. That is the spirit of freedom.

A-11 is perfectly legal. I don't personally like it, but then, there are a lot of legal things being done in this country that I don't like.

asdf Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:12am

Quote:

Originally Posted by zebra295 (Post 565457)
Found asdf!!

"Normally used for punts, the rule stated that as long as the player receiving the snap was seven yards behind center, any teammate wearing the jersey of an eligible receiver (between Nos. 1 and 49 or 80 and 89) was permitted to go downfield. Bryan and Humphries had already been noodling with a 3-3-3 superspread base formation that had two sets of three receivers flushed out wide in "pods" close to the numbers, with a center inside flanked by two tight ends, in addition to two QBs in the backfield. Now the scrimmage kick formation rule was saying they could potentially send any of those 11 players out for passes." (An offensive revolution is coming to the NFL. Can anyone stop it? - ESPN The Magazine)

You are right, the first sentence is slightly confusing to that effect! What a gotcha moment!!! Who cares if it was clearly clarified in the very next sentence. We got him! This proves he's a sportswriter! How could someone make such a "major" mistake? Blasphemy!! Its almost as bad as confusing "legal" with "approved" (to give formal or official sanction)!

TXMike, can't wait to read your next masterpiece " The Snake Oil Sportswriter is at it again"!


I'm happy to point out to you anything to keep your blood pressure elevated. Like your brother in protest, you are an easy mark. I can envision you throwing folders across the room every time you see an "insult".

HLin NC Wed Jan 07, 2009 01:04am

Mrs. Bryan, would you please get off the computer and fix Kurt some supper please?


Thankee:D

JRutledge Wed Jan 07, 2009 01:30am

Quote:

Originally Posted by waltjp (Post 565370)
Maybe it's me, but the tags for this thread have become as entertaining as the thread itself.

Where can I get a copy of that BBQ Hyena recipe?

I have to agree. I went to work a game tonight and came back and I see the tags. This is some hilarious stuff.

Peace

jjrye22 Wed Jan 07, 2009 09:47am

I'm going to jump in for my very first A-11 topic post!!!!!

I wanted to make a few observaions I have had over this:

1. Never eaten hyenas, but I bet it's stringy. I would suggest a marinade - preferably with lots of garlic and chilis.

2. I'm thinking that Juggling didn't get mentioned because he is a foreigner, so sueing him would be a lot more of a hassle.

3. It is fairly obvious from the 35 pages of messages that zebra295 has only been following the A-11 discussion for a short time, and has missed some of the background 'discussion' that has taken place. There are indeed things that KB has 'lied' about, including (as a few examples that I can think of off the top of my head) at the beginning not selling stuff, and I remember his web site showed examples of teams using the A-11, and including a clip of a big NCAA team (I want to say Michagan, but I'm probably wrong) that was supposedly using it, and completely misrepresented (semantically different than lying?) what the team was doing and how.

4. There was one (small) grain in the original complaint that I thought had an element of truth in it though. Over the years I have seen the attitude of posters occationally get a little agressive. I remember a time that Rut was always getting 'attacked' because he played devil's advocate (I think he was probably having a lot of fun with it though). And there ARE times when I think the responses here are nasty, and not always meant in irony.
That is however what it is like in a family, which is what we are. We say things, bash heads, learn from each other, move on to other topics where they see things eye to eye, and the circle rolls on and on.

I would suggest that it would be good to keep our tone regulated for new visitors (but I don't need to suggest it, since it is being done), and point out that the tone only gets 'dirty' with people who want to duke it out, and thereby enter themselves into the family atmosphere.

My opinion is that people are respected here, until they do things that loose them the respect of the others.

James,
from just outside of Berlin, Germany. If anyone wants, I'll send them my postal address and telephone number in case they want to visit.

By the way. My personal opinion is that the A-11 is EXPLOITING a loophole in the rules, and I think that is not a noble or sportsman like thing to do. I also don't agree with people who take advantages of tax loopholes.

mbyron Wed Jan 07, 2009 09:59am

My favorite tag from this thread is: "man's inhumanity to man."

I'm frankly looking forward to February, when the rules committee closes the numbering exception loophole and this becomes a non-issue.

Adam Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:00am

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXMike (Post 565436)
This pretty much proves you are NOT an official cause if you were you would know that some of the most ignorant folks when it comes to the rules of the game are the media writers and broadcasters.

Yeah, he's giving way to much intellectual credit to a sports writer.

This thread's still open? Wow.

OverAndBack Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:13am

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 565580)
My favorite tag from this thread is: "man's inhumanity to man."

That was mine. :)

Quote:

I'm frankly looking forward to February, when the rules committee closes the numbering exception loophole and this becomes a non-issue.
That'll reduce traffic here by, like, 50%. :)

JugglingReferee Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:31am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 565582)
This thread's still open? Wow.

It's taking a lot from me not to request that it be shut down. :D

Ed Hickland Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:00am

Quote:

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee (Post 565613)
It's taking a lot from me not to request that it be shut down. :D

Actually, I love reading the essays! :o

Adam Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:27am

Quote:

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee (Post 565613)
It's taking a lot from me not to request that it be shut down. :D

I was going to point it out to a moderator off line early on, but it's almost as entertaining as the Illinois Senate Fuster Cluck.

JugglingReferee Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:32am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 565661)
I was going to point it out to a moderator off line early on, but it's almost as entertaining as the Illinois Senate Fuster Cluck.

Between that, and the NY Govenor situation last year, politics makes my head spin even more. Then again, we have Harper who calls an election only to have the country wish to form a coalition government and to avoid this, our PM shuts down parliament. :rolleyes:

daggo66 Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:36am

Quote:

Originally Posted by zebra295 (Post 565457)
Found asdf!!

"Normally used for punts, the rule stated that as long as the player receiving the snap was seven yards behind center, any teammate wearing the jersey of an eligible receiver (between Nos. 1 and 49 or 80 and 89) was permitted to go downfield. Bryan and Humphries had already been noodling with a 3-3-3 superspread base formation that had two sets of three receivers flushed out wide in "pods" close to the numbers, with a center inside flanked by two tight ends, in addition to two QBs in the backfield. Now the scrimmage kick formation rule was saying they could potentially send any of those 11 players out for passes." (An offensive revolution is coming to the NFL. Can anyone stop it? - ESPN The Magazine)

You are right, the first sentence is slightly confusing to that effect! What a gotcha moment!!! Who cares if it was clearly clarified in the very next sentence. We got him! This proves he's a sportswriter! How could someone make such a "major" mistake? Blasphemy!! Its almost as bad as confusing "legal" with "approved" (to give formal or official sanction)!

TXMike, can't wait to read your next masterpiece " The Snake Oil Sportswriter is at it again"!


This is my favorite post so far! He seems so excited that he found the "rule." In any event he just proved that he's not a football official.

Welpe Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:51am

Quote:

Originally Posted by waltjp (Post 565370)
Maybe it's me, but the tags for this thread have become as entertaining as the thread itself.

Where can I get a copy of that BBQ Hyena recipe?

They have definitely taken on a life of their own. Unfortunately you no longer rate being a tag...sorry Walt.

waltjp Wed Jan 07, 2009 01:47pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welpe (Post 565678)
They have definitely taken on a life of their own. Unfortunately you no longer rate being a tag...sorry Walt.

ACK!!! I got bumped? :eek: Does this mean I have to return my hyena badge?

aschramm Wed Jan 07, 2009 02:11pm

i'm personally liking the neocon hyena tag, and illegal immigrants tag. Maybe the hyenas are illegal immigrants?...

jaybird Wed Jan 07, 2009 09:05pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by waltjp (Post 565736)
ACK!!! I got bumped? :eek: Does this mean I have to return my hyena badge?

LOL

Maybe we can get hyena patches to sew on our shirts!


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:44am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1