Possible rules changes for 2009

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by LDUB

The NCAA wording is perfect. The word may is needed because no one is ever sure that a team will kick. Teams run fakes all the time. The word obvious is needed because the team may kick on any down but the exception is only used in obvious kicking situations.

So when it's obvious that something may happen, that's not saying the same thing as that it's obvious that the event is not impossible, not forbidden? Meanwhile, whenever I see the word "obvious" it means the person to whom it's obvious is sure. If you're not sure, it ain't obvious. But it's always obvious that a kick may occur, unless "may" has also taken on a new meaning.

Robert

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

But it's always obvious that a kick may occur, unless "may" has also taken on a new meaning.

A has the ball 1st and 10 on B's 17 yard line with 9:00 left in the first quarter. Of course they may punt but it is not obvious that they may. I would be very extremely surprised if A kicked in that situation. All you have to do is ask yourself if it is a kicking situation.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by LDUB

Of course they may punt but it is not obvious that they may.

"Of course" means the same as "it's obvious that". Why would you say "of course" about something that's not obvious?

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

"Of course" means the same as "it's obvious that". Why would you say "of course" about something that's not obvious?

Everyone knows that A has the option to kick on any down. If it is first down and the A-11 is used then it is not obvious that A will actually kick during the down. They have the option to kick but it is not obvious that a kick may be attempted as basically teams never punt on first down.

When A lines up in a SKF on 4th down it is obvious that a kick may be attempted as it is common to kick on 4th down.

Originally Posted by ajmc

"Struggling" may have been stronger than necessary and a little presumptious, perhaps "hoping" they announce something might be more accurate. Does that make any difference?

The NFHS is "hoping to announce their decision regarding this situation"? That doesn't make any sense. We all know they will meet and decide on changes then announce them.

Originally Posted by ajmc

Have no idea where you're coming from regarding, "That doesn't solve the problem of teams not having anyone numbered 50-79 on the field.", I thought that issue was settled by the current numbering exception.

Yes, the current numbering exception covers that. Teams use the A-11 to get around the numbering exception which creates the problem.

Originally Posted by ajmc

The suggestion about simply lengthening the time frame "A" players would have to be set, limited to when they choose to avail themselves of the numbering exception doesn't affect the suggested purpose of the numbering exception at all, or any other rules for that matter.

Having zero players numbered 50-79 creates problems. The defense and officials can get confused during the down about who is eligible and who is not. Having to be set for a longer period of time does not change that.

Originally Posted by ajmc

Unfortunately, the A-11 offense may have let a nasty genie out of the bottle, and getting it back in, without creating a bunch of other unintentional problems, may not be so simple.

The NCAA already has it covered on 1st-3rd downs. As far as I know the NCAA has not had any problems with their numbering exception.

[bossman72]

Luke, save your breath... "You can't fix stupid"

[3SPORT]

From the Coaches code of Conduct for the NFHS-

The coach shall master the contest rules and shall teach them to his or her team members.
The coach shall not seek an advantage by circumvention of the spirit or letter of the rules.

How does the A-11 fit into this philosophy for coaches?

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by 3SPORT

From the Coaches code of Conduct for the NFHS-

The coach shall master the contest rules and shall teach them to his or her team members.
The coach shall not seek an advantage by circumvention of the spirit or letter of the rules.

How does the A-11 fit into this philosophy for coaches?

Simple. It Doesn't.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by 3SPORT

From the Coaches code of Conduct for the NFHS-

The coach shall master the contest rules and shall teach them to his or her team members.
The coach shall not seek an advantage by circumvention of the spirit or letter of the rules.

How does the A-11 fit into this philosophy for coaches?

I predict a lot of crickets chirping from certain coaches and/or apologists/supporters on this one.

[Welpe]

I feel like I've seen this movie somewhere before...

[Mike L]

Wow. So my opinion and my beliefs trump what anyone else may think. I'll have to remember if I'm ever in front of a judge.
ajmc, you seem to go to some awfully long stretches to excuse/support KB's questionable position. Why is that?
And if you really think KB has the opinion you think he does, why does he refuse to address the simple question that has been posed to him so many times?