Possible rules changes for 2009

[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.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by ajmc

none of us other than the rule makers, are authorized to declare what that "spirit" might officially be.

Um, once again, you would be dead wrong...........

From the 2008 - 2009 Officials Manual -- Page 7

BASIC PHILOSOPHY AND PRINCIPLES

PREREQUISITES FOR GOOD OFFICIATING

The NFHS Football Rules Code permits competition to be conducted in an equitable, exciting and interesting manner while at the same time specifically prohibiting unnecessary roughness, unfair tactics and unsportsmanlike conduct. If the potential values of game experience are to be attained, it is necessary that the action of the players be in conformity to the rules. Game officials must accept the responsibility of enforcing the letter, as well as the spirit, of the rules promptly and with consistency........

It further continues on Page 8....

Players who have practiced long hours deserve competent officials who have a complete understanding of the letter, as well as the spirit and intent of the rules and who administer them consistently and fairly.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

If Kurt Bryan believes that the A-11 does not violate the intention of the numbering exception why has he ignored people asking him "what is the spirit and intent of the numbering exception?" literally hundreds of times on the internet?

[asdf]

Originally Posted by LDUB

If Kurt Bryan believes that the A-11 does not violate the intention of the numbering exception why has he ignored people asking him "what is the spirit and intent of the numbering exception?" literally hundreds of times on the internet?

He can't sell any product after making that admission.

[ajmc]

I've tried my best to remain civil, but sometimes that doesn't just work. I realize there is no end to the number of really stupid questions prople can manufacture, but thought, or at least hoped, this discussion could somehow manage to rise above nonsense.

Some of you insist on acting little little children asking unending, "why" questions that you know full well cannot be answered, but you seem compelled to dwell on them anyway and seem to have taken upon yourselves the roles of chief inquisitor, judges and jury. By virtue of your stubborn insistence on clinging to, and repeating, the same stupid observations, you don't seem qualified for any of those roles.

MikeL: I'll be honest, I can't fathom how you can stretch seemingly inocuous statements into such ridiculous extremes, unless you objective is just to be silly. The only "opinion" that trumps anyone else's is the judge's (or in this case the rule makers), and nothiong has been said to suggest otherwise.

Why it may seem, "you seem to go to some awfully long stretches to excuse/support KB's questionable position" is really very simple. The man has an idea, which I'm pretty confident he believes in, and even though I don't happen to think his idea is all that great, I actually believe it unnecessarily lowers anyone who chooses to attack him personally, with nothing to back up their assertions than speculation and opinions and the opinions of like minded people who seem only interested in their narrow perspective. Simply put, "you don't get to decide, for anyone other than yourself, what the spirit of the rule is". I simply accept the fact, "IT'S NOT MY CALL" and see no vlaue in demonizing a different perception, just because it's different.

Some have rendered disagreements about this formation based on non compliance with existing rules, potential ineffectiveness due to the extremely hign level of precision execution in complying with other rules or the exposure key players have to a well executed defensive scheme. That type of disagreement is fine, helpful and worthy of discussion.

However, those that choose to harp on personal insults, speculative bad intentions and purely SUBJECTIVE interpretations of undefined principles that they insist on twisting to suit their arguments are wasting everybody's time throwing smoke, innuendo and nothing but personal opinion about as if they speak for some higher power. If your belief is that you hold some higher value than those who disagree with you, that's entirely on you, but suggest you might focus on convincing the "man in your mirror" before you convince yourself anyone else might be convinced.

asdf: I don't know how to say it clearer, what you think the "spirit of the rule" means only reflects YOUR opinion and doesn't necessarily mean squat to anyone else, so repeating what is a totally subjective statement over and over doesn't add anything to the discussion. Each of us determine what we understand the "Spirit of the Rule" to be, and that conclusion may be right or it may be wrong.

Do us both a favor and stop with the stupid, childish "why" questions.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Do us both a favor and stop with the stupid, childish "why" questions.

That as-of-yet unanswered question of the coach goes to the essence of the argument.

If he really believed that he wasn't violating the 'spirit of the rules' he wouldn't have gone through the whole process of submitting his offense to CIF and NFHS for review. I suspect he knew he was on thin ice.

The very first time I was asked about the A-11 I stated that it was technically legal, but violated the spirit of the rules. My opinion hasn't changed since then. I do expect the rules will change shortly.

waltjp
Member of the LOUD MINORITY

[asdf]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I've tried my best to remain civil, but sometimes that doesn't just work. I realize there is no end to the number of really stupid questions prople can manufacture, but thought, or at least hoped, this discussion could somehow manage to rise above nonsense.

Some of you insist on acting little little children asking unending, "why" questions that you know full well cannot be answered, but you seem compelled to dwell on them anyway and seem to have taken upon yourselves the roles of chief inquisitor, judges and jury. By virtue of your stubborn insistence on clinging to, and repeating, the same stupid observations, you don't seem qualified for any of those roles.

MikeL: I'll be honest, I can't fathom how you can stretch seemingly inocuous statements into such ridiculous extremes, unless you objective is just to be silly. The only "opinion" that trumps anyone else's is the judge's (or in this case the rule makers), and nothiong has been said to suggest otherwise.

Why it may seem, "you seem to go to some awfully long stretches to excuse/support KB's questionable position" is really very simple. The man has an idea, which I'm pretty confident he believes in, and even though I don't happen to think his idea is all that great, I actually believe it unnecessarily lowers anyone who chooses to attack him personally, with nothing to back up their assertions than speculation and opinions and the opinions of like minded people who seem only interested in their narrow perspective. Simply put, "you don't get to decide, for anyone other than yourself, what the spirit of the rule is". I simply accept the fact, "IT'S NOT MY CALL" and see no vlaue in demonizing a different perception, just because it's different.

Some have rendered disagreements about this formation based on non compliance with existing rules, potential ineffectiveness due to the extremely hign level of precision execution in complying with other rules or the exposure key players have to a well executed defensive scheme. That type of disagreement is fine, helpful and worthy of discussion.

However, those that choose to harp on personal insults, speculative bad intentions and purely SUBJECTIVE interpretations of undefined principles that they insist on twisting to suit their arguments are wasting everybody's time throwing smoke, innuendo and nothing but personal opinion about as if they speak for some higher power. If your belief is that you hold some higher value than those who disagree with you, that's entirely on you, but suggest you might focus on convincing the "man in your mirror" before you convince yourself anyone else might be convinced.

asdf: I don't know how to say it clearer, what you think the "spirit of the rule" means only reflects YOUR opinion and doesn't necessarily mean squat to anyone else, so repeating what is a totally subjective statement over and over doesn't add anything to the discussion. Each of us determine what we understand the "Spirit of the Rule" to be, and that conclusion may be right or it may be wrong.

Do us both a favor and stop with the stupid, childish "why" questions.

You stated that only the rules makers can declare what the spirit of the rule can officially be. I quoted you in the NFHS Officials Manual where they charge us with the responsibility as well. Take a few moments to read the manual and you see the words courage, common sense, etc...

Yet you choose to ignore such a mandate...

I thought for a while that you were just trolling, but I was wrong.

You sir (or madam)..... are an idiot.

Now go cry to mommy, or kurt.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ajmc

asdf: I don't know how to say it clearer, what you think the "spirit of the rule" means only reflects YOUR opinion and doesn't necessarily mean squat to anyone else, so repeating what is a totally subjective statement over and over doesn't add anything to the discussion. Each of us determine what we understand the "Spirit of the Rule" to be, and that conclusion may be right or it may be wrong.

Do us both a favor and stop with the stupid, childish "why" questions.

Good grief. Look, I'm a basketball official. With football, I'm a fan boy, and one that couldn't tell the difference between a Red Dog defense and a Red Robin burger. But common sense can tell me three things.

1. The purpose of the numbering requirements was to eliminate confusion.

2. The purpose of the exemption was to allow players to play different positions than normal due to the unique requirements of punt coverage teams.

3. The stated advantage of this "A-11" offense is to circumvent the exemption and reintroduce the confusion addressed by the numbering requirements to begin with.

4. (yeah, I know I said "three," but give me a break) The biggest proponent of this offense has only skirted the "spirit and intent" issue, and has done so by simply addressing "spirit" and insinuating the spirit of the rules can be debated. Leaving out "intent" is like eating pizza without meat; it's just not right.

[Welpe]

Snaqs, we could use you in the striped shirt with collars ranks.

[ajmc]

"You sir (or madam)..... are an idiot." (asdf)

Perhaps, but before you blow way too much smoke up your own other end about your "courage and common sense" you might want to consider the childish behavior you have demonstrated in these interactions. When faced with disagreement about any rule interpretation or situation the appropriate way to respond to challenge is to remain calm, collected and on point, basing your argument on fact and understanding.

Resorting to personal attacks based purely on speculation about issues you have no factual knowledge about, with the express purpose of simply denegrating those who disagree with you, rather than keeping your challenge to the issue at hand, is the behavior of an insecure juvenile, and has nothing to with either courage or common sense.

Running off on a tangent seeking cover under some obscure interpretation of what you unsuccessfully try to sneak under the cover of, "Spirit of the Rules" is not an example of what the Officials Manual you so glibly quote advises. The Manual suggests "The officials duties and responsibilities are fixed by rules and this manual is designed to help officials carry out these duties. It goes on to talk about, "how to show poise, control temper, or how to be coutreous and considerate yet firm and decisive." "Fixed by rules", not the whim and opinion of individuals who simply don't like, don't understand or are unwilling to face and deal with interpretations they don't feel comfortable or agree with.

There's nothing in the Officials Manual suggesting bullying or trying to coerce opinions about matters that may simply be viewed differently, even should those perceptions eventually turn out to be incorrect. Mature officials abide by what the rule makers have stated, until such time the rule makers decide to make adjustments. We don't work by a show of hands.

I suffer no illusions about always being right, and am willing and eager to hear and consider differing opinions and perspectives, as long as they are rational, factual and are presented in an appropriate manner. Differing perspectives have taught me a lot over time, but to benefit from them you have to consider the facts apart from the emotions.

One talent officiating has taught me is to recognize emotionally dependent blow hards who think shouting and insulting those they disagree with will somehow make them look and sound smarter. You are not even close to establishing anything as being a mandate, so spare me your indignation.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ajmc

One talent officiating has taught me is to recognize emotionally dependent blow hards who think shouting and insulting those they disagree with will somehow make them look and sound smarter. You are not even close to establishing anything as being a mandate, so spare me your indignation.

One talent it hasn't taught you is to be able to communicate concisely, always using 500 words when 50 would do.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by ajmc

"You sir (or madam)..... are an idiot." (asdf)

Perhaps, but before you blow way too much smoke up your own other end about your "courage and common sense" you might want to consider the childish behavior you have demonstrated in these interactions. When faced with disagreement about any rule interpretation or situation the appropriate way to respond to challenge is to remain calm, collected and on point, basing your argument on fact and understanding.

Resorting to personal attacks based purely on speculation about issues you have no factual knowledge about, with the express purpose of simply denegrating those who disagree with you, rather than keeping your challenge to the issue at hand, is the behavior of an insecure juvenile, and has nothing to with either courage or common sense.

Running off on a tangent seeking cover under some obscure interpretation of what you unsuccessfully try to sneak under the cover of, "Spirit of the Rules" is not an example of what the Officials Manual you so glibly quote advises. The Manual suggests "The officials duties and responsibilities are fixed by rules and this manual is designed to help officials carry out these duties. It goes on to talk about, "how to show poise, control temper, or how to be coutreous and considerate yet firm and decisive." "Fixed by rules", not the whim and opinion of individuals who simply don't like, don't understand or are unwilling to face and deal with interpretations they don't feel comfortable or agree with.

There's nothing in the Officials Manual suggesting bullying or trying to coerce opinions about matters that may simply be viewed differently, even should those perceptions eventually turn out to be incorrect. Mature officials abide by what the rule makers have stated, until such time the rule makers decide to make adjustments. We don't work by a show of hands.

I suffer no illusions about always being right, and am willing and eager to hear and consider differing opinions and perspectives, as long as they are rational, factual and are presented in an appropriate manner. Differing perspectives have taught me a lot over time, but to benefit from them you have to consider the facts apart from the emotions.

One talent officiating has taught me is to recognize emotionally dependent blow hards who think shouting and insulting those they disagree with will somehow make them look and sound smarter. You are not even close to establishing anything as being a mandate, so spare me your indignation.

Thanks...

You validated my opinion.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

1. The purpose of the numbering requirements was to eliminate confusion.

OK as far as it goes, but the confusion it was supposed to eliminate was the defense's confusion as to which players to cover as potential pass receivers. It's like a number of other changes that've been made over the years that took away specific ways the offense could deceive the defense, even ways that'd been in common use for long periods of time. Some of those methods were considered unfair -- hiding the ball under clothes comes to mind as an example of that -- but others were just matters of taste.

Alternatives to this particular one have been given a little try. The WFL at least experimented with the use of a contrasting color of helmet to identify eligible receivers. The expense of helmets precludes their use in such a manner by players who wish to participate at both eligible & ineligible positions. And I wish someone would impress on kids that sitting on helmets can damage them -- that they're made to take impacts, not sustained force.

Robert

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Why it may seem, "you seem to go to some awfully long stretches to excuse/support KB's questionable position" is really very simple. The man has an idea, which I'm pretty confident he believes in, and even though I don't happen to think his idea is all that great, I actually believe it unnecessarily lowers anyone who chooses to attack him personally, with nothing to back up their assertions than speculation and opinions and the opinions of like minded people who seem only interested in their narrow perspective. Simply put, "you don't get to decide, for anyone other than yourself, what the spirit of the rule is". I simply accept the fact, "IT'S NOT MY CALL" and see no vlaue in demonizing a different perception, just because it's different.

Fine, it's different, however we don't like it. We are entitled to that opinion. We are entitled to back up those opinions and assertation.

WHY do you so vehemently defend KB? He has never had a problem voicing his viewpoint on here and he continues to post testimonials as opposed to direct statments.

You seem to have a very childish problem of not being able to separate attacking someone's words with attacking someone personally. It's not the same thing.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by daggo66

You seem to have a very childish problem of not being able to separate attacking someone's words with attacking someone personally. It's not the same thing.

I'm glad you agree, then why not stop the stupid personal attacks and focus on the issue, if you absolutely have to say anything more.