Possible rules changes for 2009

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Perhaps I respond because I don't want the smell of your garbage to taint the stripes of my shirt.

So several States have outlawed this offense and vow to change the current NFHS rules. As we all know, they have the right to do whatever they want WITHIN THEIR STATE. Does any of that make this offense illegal under the NFHS code? I don't think so. Has the NFHS declared this offense illegal, I don't think so. We all vow to do a lot of things that never get done.

The point is the NFHS never intended the A-11. Unfortunately, I do not have the discussion around the numbering exception and why but one could imagine it was to allow on a scrimmage kick a number other than 50-79 to be the long snapper without having to manipulate his jersey. Not in the wildest dreams was the A-11 intended. The great thing about what has happened with the A-11 is various interpretations have ruled it legal or illegal and almost without a doubt NFHS will fill the loophole that allowed it. Read the proposed changes and it is obvious. My personal hope is somehow the numbering exception is not removed as one member of the rules committee wants to do.

...You had the options to totally ignore me, and my opinion, consider it and apply it as you deemed appropriate,

Whatever KB has said, concluded, opined, suggested or inferred that you find improper or objectional IS ON HIM, but that doesn't give you, or anybody else license to insult, accuse or dispariage him in return. Whatever you choose to say in return is ON YOU, and is not his fault, my fault or anyone else's fault.

I for one have said Coach Bryan's motivation was suspect and I think it still is. He could have easily run the A-11 at Piedmont there is the hills outside Oakland with the approval of the local officials. So why did he engage ESPN, the New York Times, etc.? You just don't expose anything to the length he has without some motivation. He is a salesman by his actions. He expects some return, albeit, public accolades, his legend, money... To question his motivation is not to insult, it is exactly that, Kurt why are you doing this? And, I have not seen one post where he answers that question completely. Until he does there will be speculation. After all, this is the United States and we have the right to speak as long as we do not defame.

We've all stepped over the line occassionally and most often correct things by simply realizing we may have, and step back. This nonsense has gone this far simply because you, and others, have elected to ride your high horse even higher, rather than simply step down.

A final point, which seems to escape some, is that this is an "Official's Forum" and, as is always the case (whether we like it or not), how we choose to say what we choose to say reflects on who we are, not only individually but collectively as well, especially when we're dealing with a non official. We all have some responsibility not to embarrass each other.

Maybe you should swallow a dose of the medicine you prescribe.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

I for one have said Coach Bryan's motivation was suspect and I think it still is. To question his motivation is not to insult, it is exactly that, Kurt why are you doing this? After all, this is the United States and we have the right to speak as long as we do not defame.

Maybe you should swallow a dose of the medicine you prescribe.

Excuse me, Ed, I cut out most of your superflous BS in the interest of space. To question anyone's motivation is not a problem, and I've never suggested it was. It's when you decide to include your own speculation as answers to your questions, that gets close to and over the line.

Asking a question is not usually a problem. It becomes a problem when you start thinking you can demand answers and everyone else is required to respond to thos demands. When, how and why to respond to any question is entirely up to the person being questioned. Someone may choose to decline to answer a question, because they might think it stupid, leading, not like the tone in which it was asked or otherwise not worthy of answering, which doesn't give the questioner license to substitute whatever answer they might imagine as being possible or presuming what the answers should be.

I'm glad you recognize there is a line drawn at "defame". Although it's not a straight line, the input I found objectionable were the comments that fell clearly over any reasonably placed line.

I assure you Ed, I've swallowed gallons of the medicine I've prescribed and have found it often distasteful and sometimes hard to swallow, but it's ususally proven to be very beneficial. Unfortunately, the malady is never totally cured, it's more a condition you hope just continually keeps getting better and doesn't repeat itself.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Excuse me, Ed, I cut out most of your superflous BS in the interest of space. To question anyone's motivation is not a problem, and I've never suggested it was. It's when you decide to include your own speculation as answers to your questions, that gets close to and over the line.

Asking a question is not usually a problem. It becomes a problem when you start thinking you can demand answers and everyone else is required to respond to thos demands. When, how and why to respond to any question is entirely up to the person being questioned. Someone may choose to decline to answer a question, because they might think it stupid, leading, not like the tone in which it was asked or otherwise not worthy of answering, which doesn't give the questioner license to substitute whatever answer they might imagine as being possible or presuming what the answers should be.

Know you are missing the point. Coach Bryan's initative will fail because has failed to appeal to the audience he needed on the level they play. The Rules Committee is a conservative organization charged with carefully thinking through the rules. The A-11 is an embrassment to them to think they could have missed the loophole. Then Coach Bryan's publicity campaign that will "revolutionize" football is an in your face move. Add to that, reporters from the New York Times and ESPN touting the A-11 while several states are making it illegal.

Coach Bryan should be willing to answer questions, in fact, should solicit questions from this board or other officials organizations and give solid answers to bolster his case. Quoting a 50 year official versus gaining the support of a group of officials would be more powerful. I cannot and will not speak for those beside myself who are against the A-11, the perceived attitude of Coach Bryan to choose not to address our issues is what I believe has led to the negative comments expressed here.

BTW. What you call superfluous BS is actually part of a well thought out response which I wish you would engage rather than writing rambling essays devoid of actual content.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

BTW. What you call superfluous BS is actually part of a well thought out response which I wish you would engage rather than writing rambling essays devoid of actual content.

Ed, My apologies if you consider this response redundant, but I must assume previous attempts were not clear enough for you. I do not particularly care for the concept of the A-11 offense, and never have. There is no question in my mind that this approach is a carefully crafted attempt to utilize the existing numbering exception to accomplish an objective that was never originally considered, so I'm not competent to argue in it's favor.

However, I do not believe that suggesting an approach not previously considered in any way abuses the rule or takes an inappropriate advantage of it. The NFHS apparently agrees that there is nothing in the current wording of the rule that renders it illegal, and that the current language provides a glaring loophole.

The remedy is relatively simple; if the rule makers determine this loophole to be prohibitive they have the ultimate power to close it by ammending the language of the rule. Arguments, many of which seem appropriate and valid, have been aggressively make to support those objections. Expanding beyond relevant objections to include insult, innuendo, personal attacks regarding motivations that are completely and totally unsubstantiated only detracts from the debate.

Regarding the offense itself, I don't see where it violates any current rules, although I believe to be effective, it requires such a high level of consistent precise compliance with several other rules (formations, shifts and motion) to render it impractical at the High School level.

Why Coach Bryan chooses not to answer specific questions, why he has, in your judgment, chosen not to ask specific questions or interact with other official's organizations or address your specific "issues" is totally beyond my vision. I might mention that other contributors to these forums criticise him for trying to interact, and dialogue with officials.

Just a guess, but perhaps the fact that many of his inquiries, or offerings, tend to generate responses that characterize his interests in extremely negative terms and twist and turn his observations into ulterior motivations and subjective accusations may have a bearing on his reluctance.

If you believe his actions, or lack thereof, have been detrimental to his cause that is an entirely rational conclusion well within your grasp. That does not, in my humble opinion however, provide you, or anyone else who may feel opposed to Coach Bryan or his A-11 offense idea, license to question his integrity, challenge his personal honesty, insult, mock or demean him, especially on a forum that is intended to be recognized as a gathering place for professional football officials to share ideas related to the rules and the game of football. It has always been my understanding that we are, and well should be, above that level of petty behavior.

[daggo66]

Who are you and what have you done with ajmc?