Taking On A Pack Of Viscous Hyenas

[TXMike]

Much as I have disagreed with Rut over the years on issues, I have to say that he came into this A11 thing with an open mind if you go back and look at the earliest posts on the A11. Then, he actually saw it and apparently even participated in some media review of it. Based on that and other involvement he has had, he has now come to the conclusions he has re KB. I would say that he probably is better poised than most (including me) to comment on the mess so I will take what he says over the newbie, possible imposter.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Hey, I have at least three posts in thread and I escaped being mentioned!

You do kind of blend in. I thought it went without saying.

[jaybird]

Originally Posted by zebra295

Awesome Hyena photo!

Rutledge Dude!

Don't forget: Barack ran so that Zebra295 could fly.

... And this is what's printed on JRutledge's signature...

Rosa sat so Martin could walk.
Martin walked so Obama could run.
Barack ran so that our children could fly.

So now we have the answer guys, Zebra295 is a child. Based on his posts, this makes sense. Now bear in mind, I did not call him that, he referred to himself as that.

[ajmc]

I'll try one final time, I do not have any problem with your, "right to feel something is illegal, not allowed in the game or improper under the rules", or your right to comment on any of that. However you really don't have any right, and should know better, than to accuse someone you disagree with of lying (as opposed to simply being wrong or inaccurate), or some ulterior motivation based on your own speculation and suspicion.

You can make your point (I submit) more effectively stating your case based on your position. If, in your judgment, someone you disagree with deliberately, "misrepresented and mislead people to believe things" that you believe are not true, your argument would be a lot stronger attacking what was said, rather than going after the messenger at a personal level, and you can avoid needlessly getting muddy.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I'll try one final time, I do not have any problem with your, "right to feel something is illegal, not allowed in the game or improper under the rules", or your right to comment on any of that. However you really don't have any right, and should know better, than to accuse someone you disagree with of lying (as opposed to simply being wrong or inaccurate), or some ulterior motivation based on your own speculation and suspicion.

You do not know the definition of a lie is, if you believe that. As I said KB told us (several times and on more than this board) that the National Federation "approved" his offense. There were several statements from National Federation Football Board Members that not only said they would do what they could to outlaw this offense, they went ahead in their respective states and outlawed the offense anyway before the issue was to be reviewed. And then KB said the NF Committee Chair said the offense was "approved" but people found statements from prominent members of the NF Football Committee that said they would review the current rules and see if they needed to change the rules. Even in the Tribune article that I referenced, a person with the NF said they would have to review the current rules to see if this follows the spirit and intent of this offense. It was clear the NF did not "approve" the offense and at best they told him under the current rules this was legal. But there is no record or evidence that the NF ever signed off on the offense as if they would not change the rule or that it did not violate a basic principle of the rules. I am not just saying this, people contacted their representatives and contacted prominent people on the NF Committee to prove what KB was saying was not true.

My state also addressed this issue and KB said that my state also "approved" the offense. Also not true. What my state did was remind us what the rules were and made sure that we made sure that any time running this offense followed the current rules like 7 yards behind the LOS, properly setting up on the line and setting up off the line. And we were told by our head rules interpreter that if the offense was not executed perfectly, flag them for violations because the entire intent of the offense was to deceive the defense by using a loophole in the rule. The Head Rule Interrupter is an assignor and I work games for him, this was discussed at an association meeting that I belong to.

And those were just the big examples. Not to mention the claims of being safer (no study), or that he was not selling anything (the last post proved that was not true) and that officials all over the place approved or had not problems running the offense. Again, not true. And you can go to the NF website and see those claims as well.

I do not know about you, but if I said I worked a State Final and it was proven that I did not work a State Final, that would be a lie. And people here would rip me for it left and right. It is the same concept and people would have the right to call me a liar.

Originally Posted by ajmc

You can make your point (I submit) more effectively stating your case based on your position. If, in your judgment, someone you disagree with deliberately, "misrepresented and mislead people to believe things" that you believe are not true, your argument would be a lot stronger attacking what was said, rather than going after the messenger at a personal level, and you can avoid needlessly getting muddy.

I am not telling anything I believe, I am telling you something that has been proven. The information that I said to you has been verified by more than just a few postings online. There have been articles written, official statements made and even on my website comments are still there and public to officials. And all my comments fall in the lap of the person that represented these claims to everyone on this site. I do not recall that anyone else went on a campaign to try to convince officials and coaches what the position of the NF was and what states were doing. Actually, most of us did not even know of this offense until the creator went on a rampage on multiple websites to give information.

I am still waiting for one bit of evidence on your part that suggest that any of this is not true or unprofessional. Tick....Tock....Tick......Tock........

You have to do more than just say you do not like it. And if you have the stones to stick around a little longer, you will see this kind of interaction is very common on this site. People cannot just say what they want and expect others here to just not take on their claims. And that is the way it should be.

Peace

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The Head Rule Interrupter is an assignor and I work games for him,

That sounds like a cool job. Is it hard to talk to him, does he interrupt you all the time while you're speaking?



I'M JUST KEEDING!

[ajmc]

Yes, I know what my definition of a lie is. Are you so sure of what someone else meant by the word "approved" that you would brand him a liar because you've spoken to several other people who might hold a different understanding of what "approved" might mean to them?

If your sources say all kinds of things that they are considering doing, does that change the fact of what currently is? What current "is", happens to be that this A-11 offense has not been declared illegal at the NFHS level, which could reasonably be interpreted to meanit is legal (accepted, appropriate or approved).

Does having a different understanding of what someone might have meant make that someone a liar for having a different understanding, or just that they may have misunderstood? Your "State" had the opportunity to render this formation illegal, and apparently choked on that decision. Why?, probably because they can't identify where it violates any existing rules AS WRITTEN, so even though they don't like it, they recognize they're stuck with it, until something changes. Suggesting it had to comply with all other existing rules, says NOTHING. Every formation has to comply with existing rules.

Can you demonstrate where the NFHS has "signed off " on the T-formation? There's no violation of any rules that make it illegal, so it is therefore legal, and as some would understand therefore, approved.

I hate to burst your bubble, but simply because you don't agree that something is accurate, doesn't make another opinion a lie. Neither does the fact that other people might share your opinion. History has proven the majority can often be wrong.

Coach Bryan has expressed his opinion, others have expressed a different perception. Neither opinion needs be deceptive, dishonest or a lie, they're just different opinions, neither of which matter all that much until the rule makers (whose opinions are the only ones that really matter) render theirs.

I've told you six ways from Sunday, I'm not going to have any problem whichever way the rules makers react. If they decide to adjust the current rule to eliminate using the numbering exception for anything other than kicking, I'm perfectly happy with that. If they decide that the A-11 is OK to continue under the present rule wording, I can deal with that. It will likely generate some mechanics alterations, but we dealt with this issue before the numbering exception, and we'll deal with again if necessary.

As I have long maintained I don't think the level of constant precision it requires with the existing formational, motion and shift rules makes it a practical, viable offering. I also believe that should this formation garner the wild support you are so afraid of, a gaggle of smart defensive coaches will design counter measures to render it ineffective.

I also suspect, over time, I may disagree with suggestions made on this, or similar, forums and I hope I'm mature enough to be able to control my own emotions, and present whatever counterpoints I may think appropriate in a civil, serious and reasonably friendly and respectful tone. I've found I have a better chance of being successfully persuasive when I keep emotions in check.

[waltjp]

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?

[asdf]

just for kicks.......

Websters

Main Entry: ap·prove Pronunciation: \ə-ˈprüv\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): ap·proved; ap·prov·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French apruer, approver, from Latin approbare, from ad- + probare to prove — more at prove

Date: 14th century

transitive verb

1: obsolete : prove , attest
2: to have or express a favorable opinion of
3a: to accept as satisfactory
b: to give formal or official sanction to : ratify (Congress approved the proposed budget)

intransitive verb
: to take a favorable view (doesn't approve of fighting)



Have at it......

[zebra295]

Okay Mr. JRutledge. I think that was very good what you just wrote because you justified your opinion and it is reasonable for you to feel that you might have been "misled" on those two big A-11 issues and therefore in your opinion Kurt is a "Liar".

But If I may take the other side and entertain this possibility for a just a minute. You have a high school coach who comes up with a new offense and makes the effort to submit it to the local section and the FED for what he thinks is "approval" to run this offense in the scrimmage kick formation, from the powers that be. And it is a fact that technically he didn't need to submit anything at all because according to the letter of the rule, it could be run "legally".

So this coach, who probably has never submitted something like this to the FED before, and therefore could be considered a "novice in the practice of submitting an offense for approval by the FED", gets a reply that as far as they are concerned it is "legal and can be run".

Then probably happy his offense was given what he thinks is "approval" (DEF per above: to give formal or official sanction to), tells others in the football community his offense was "approved" by the FED.

BUT! For those who are experts in the inner workings of the FED, the offense was really only declared "legal" to run and not "approved", making him totally wrong to those in the know.

WHICH! Caused resentment amongst the experts and got everyone off on the wrong foot, causing highly charged and un-gentlemanly chat room exchanges over time, which has has led us to where we are today! ---- Of course, in addition to that "intent" thing. But could "intent" ever get discussed because nobody could get past the anger over the "legal" thing?

Did a simple mis-understanding of the definition of whether the offense was declared "legal" or "approved" cause all this?


Maybe Obama has a good Hyena BBQ recipe. . .

[asdf]

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]

Originally Posted by asdf

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]

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]

Originally Posted by umpirebob71

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]

Originally Posted by zebra295

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.