Possible rules changes for 2009

[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.

[Robert Goodman]

Any time you find the spirit of a rule consistently being violated in a particular way by certain participants who adhere to its letter, the problem is not with those participants, it's with the letter. The football governing bodies have never looked at such a situation for long and decided to let it sit with, oh, well, we'll just have game officials rule on the spirit of the rule rather than the letter. They've always done whatever they could to revise the letter of the rules in conformity with whatever they decided their spirit to be, if they thought they were in conflict.

"Spirit" is good only as an interim consideration to deal with unanticipated situations where the letter is unclear. Now that A-11 is around, it's (fortunately) too late to deal with it that way, even if the letter of the rules was unclear, which it's not. And I guarantee you the rules committee would laugh out of consideration any solution based on an official's judgement pre-snap about what the percentage plays are. And just wait until the first team playing under NCAA rules starts using A-11, and you'll see the letter of their rule doesn't save them either. I think NCAA's going to look at what Fed does about it.

Several posters here have suggested fixes that, while each embodying their own trade-offs, are devoid of any such official's determination as above.

Robert

[ajmc]

I realize some of you may never have even thought to even consider the remote possibility, that Coach Bryan may actually BELIEVE that his idea, the A-11 offense does not contradict with the SPIRIT of any rule.

Of course, it's already been determined that this basic strategy DOES NOT conflict with the LETTER of any current rules.

Those of you, who do see the the A-11 as a violation of the "Spirit" of the rules are certainly entitled to your OPINIONS, but that's all they are, your opinions which seem opposite to the opinions of those who created this concept.

It is possible for someone to be absolutely wrong, about their opinion, without being dishonest, misleading or having ulterior motivation other than advancing an idea, that may prove to be, simply, wrong.

Whether this strategy is eventually determined to be an excessive, or improper, expansion of the NFHS numbering exception, or detrimental to the game for any other reason, remains to be seen. The general presumption, or at least hope, is that the NFHS rule makers recognizing the depth of disagreement existing within the officiating community regarding this approach, will render some specific guidance and clarify, by whatever means they choose, to rule on the issue.

Although we all have a right to express an OPINION on what "the spirit" of any rule might mean to us individually, or collectively, none of us other than the rule makers, are authorized to declare what that "spirit" might officially be.

A conflict of opinions has clearly surfaced, each side has been presented and hopefully a determination of which side will prevail will soon be announced. God willing when a final determination has been made, the losing side, will accept the decision, gracefully, and life will go on.