Possible rules changes for 2009
 

PDF file of proposed NFHS rules changes for 2009, which, obviously, have to go through the whole process.

#16 on Page 4 stands out to me:

Rule number 2-14-2 on page 32

ART. 2 . . . A scrimmage-kick formation is a formation with at least one player 7 yards or more behind the neutral zone and in position to receive the long snap. No player may be in position to receive a hand-to-hand snap from between the snapper’s legs and it is obvious that a kick may be attempted.

Rationale: This would eliminate the use of the numbering exception rule on scrimmage downs unless it is obvious that a kick may be attempted (i.e. 4th & 10 not 1st & 10). Football has been and always will be a game of deception and trickery involving multiple shifts, unusual formation and creative plays.

Seems to me that would put a certain offense that starts with an A and ends with an 11 out of business, no?

I (among with many, many others I'm sure) asked for the wording to be changed to exactly what you see here. And, my personal rationale was to do away w/ A-11. I'm one in probably 10,000 officials who specifically asked for this. Every year our chapter gives us an opportunity to write up what rules changes we believe should take place. This was one of them and I wasn't the only one from my chapter to ask for this change. They submitted a request to our state representative to present this change. And, I'm sure we weren't the only chapter nor the only state to ask for this.

I think the A-11 is pretty interesting (and very clever) but I think it will lead to to many officiating mistakes which why I think it makes sense to change the rule. But, I'm sure there are other (and perhaps better) arguments to keep it. This is just my opinion. I realize that a few may get upset with this opinion but it is what it is.

So now you can't punt on 1D/10? Seems like the NFHS wants to dictate strategy, rather than letting coaches do it.

I don't believe so. No one says you can't punt. It's just the numbering exception that's changed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this pretty closely mimics the NCAA rule.

2nd and 8 from B's 22 with 4 seconds left in the half? Yeah, I'm pretty sure a kick may be attempted.

A number of these are "who really cares" kind of changes for me, but for those that I think matter...

#6 visible play clock req'd, good luck getting schools to blow the money on this.
#10 so now those sweat bands can be anywhere? Up on the biceps, on the legs, etc. Is this what they really want?
#11 they really think all of this communication stuff is low cost? Going to end up with the "haves" getting an advantage over the "have nots" schools.
#13 eliminates the need for "timing" component on chop blocks. Ought to include low-low blocks as well.
#14 initial contact determines catch, so what's the definition of "initial contact"? On a diving catch where the foot comes down first and then the body lands jarring the ball out. Is the foot the initial contact which makes it a catch or is it the entire process of landing which maybe makes it not?
#15 just makes the A-11 QB be 10 yds back instead of 7. Worthless.
#16 the scrimmage kick formation now requires it to be obvious a kick may occur, would be enough to kill A-11.
#18 no hitting "defenseless opponents", so when does "in the act of kicking the ball" begin? Does this mean no contact in the steps before the kick and before he actually kicks it? And "passer who is in the act of throwing the ball"? Really?!? So if the QB has his arm in motion but has not yet released the ball you can't hit him? And what if B is already in contact with him and then he begins to throw? Does B have to release or what? This is really well thought out, NOT.
#19 fouls by A behind the NZ have enforcement spot at previous spot, ok. But what about intentional grounding? A could potentially lose a lot less yards by IGing the ball. Better establish which fouls apply and which don't, NCAA here we come.
#24 establishing a 35/25 clock like NCAA's 40/25 clock. Is that what this tries to do? Spend more money on play clocks and in a fashion that will confuse already confused CO's. Yeah, that's a good idea.
#25 punter now sorta like the kick holder as far as being down and receiving the snap. Ok.
#26 comparing the runners helmet coming off to an IW? Just stupid.
#27 create mad scrambles for blocked try's? Just stupid.
#29, #30, #31 an attempt to kill the A-11 by requiring a kick or just eliminating the numbering exception? Just stupid.
#32 eliminates a loop-hole on extended time after a loss of down type foul to either team. Ok.
#33 eliminates loss of down on OPI & keeps 15yd penalty. I'd rather see OPI become 5 yds & loss of down like all the other LOD penalties that can happen against A.
#34 dead ball fouls after the TD can now be carried over to the KO. Good.
#35 no contact on receiver who has reached same yard line as defender. If we really need to change this rule, I'd rather see it as receiver is beyond the defender just because some seal blocks are done at the same yard line.
#38 horse collar tackle now a foul. Good.
#39 1st down depending on where a foul happens on the field? Just stupid.
#40 no more inadvertent face masks. Ok.
#42 limiting access in the 2 yd box, too vague as to who it applies to especially when you have.....
#43 nobody allowed in the 2 yd box during live ball. Great.
#44 B foul on running play that ends behind the NZ, enforce spot is previous spot. Just stupid.

I would think that if a kick actually does happen, you are not going to drop a flag and allow the SKF. Besides, any coach that tries the 1st & 10 quick kick usually does not send in his SKF team because that kinda defeats the purpose of the surprise portion of the play, right?

So then are certain players restricted from playing a spot that they want to play?

I guess what I'm saying is this:

In Canadian rules, yes we have numbering rules, but ultimately, any player can play anywhere but they may need to report to the R (who tells B or tells the U to tell B).

Does the same freedom exist in Fed?

Perhaps. For one play, certainly some players can be taught a second position.

and it is obvious that a kick may be attempted.



Someone explain how it is obvious. I guess we are supposed to be mind-readers.

As one who has never officiated but tries to explain rules on the radio (and thus educating myself on them as best I can) I never could understand the rationale of the ground not being able to cause a fumble, but it could cause an incompletion.

Also, I disagree with #17, doing away with the free kick after the fair catch. Is the drop kick also not allowed in NFHS?

Finally, states can accept, reject or tweak these any way they want, correct?

This list has already appeared on another forum. Its not even close to what will actually be considered in Feb. Some of the proposals listed are way too far out there.

I don't forsee things like requiring a play clock or going to a 40/25 type clock. We can't get play clock ops to run them right NOW. Getting them to choose correctly between the two is a logistical nightmare beyond comprehension. Sometimes its hard enough to get a competent GAME clock operator.

The modifying of the scrimmage kick numbering exception a la NCAA is one I CAN see passing. I worry we'll drop the 5 yard facemask foul and go back to the same problems, unless the Fed adopts the NFL/NCAA philosophy, which I find difficult to believe considering we've added the 5 yarder in the last decade.
OPI is one I could see getting changed.

That language solves nothing. When is it never obvious that a kick may be attempted? A kick may be attempted on 1st & 10. I've seen kicks on 1st down a few times, but even if it'd never been done, it may be done.

If they wanted to, they could formulate definite criteria, like proposal 15, but they should not stick their head into this "may be" mess even if NCAA's been there already.

I see the long march of the hash marks inward across the codes is proposed to continue.

Do any of you think the proposal for the chop block revision woule make it easier to administer? Looks to me that it might be harder, because there must be some (unstated) time limit on what constitutes a combination block.

Robert

I don't think it says this -- I think ANY PF or 15 yard FM would be an AFD.

I get the rationale. Last season we had a 2nd and goal from the 8 and the quarterback was sacked by his face mask. Essentially all they got for their trouble was a repeat of the down and nobody on either sideline understood the enforcement. It makes sense to award an AFD for serious penalties and I'm surprised it hadn't been added sooner.

I would also like to see the all but one eliminated on offensive fouls behind the line with us going to the previous spot. And the LOD eliminated on OPI.

I still dream that someday that live ball offside on the defense will be added (with the team allowed to get back) as well as kicks being live into the end zone.

These would not be additions to Fed but restorations. From before your time.

I've scrubbed a lot of bad rules and mechanics out of my mind. You have a date for these little goodies?

I think it gives us an out and they're relying on our judgment as experienced officials. It's basically to keep you from using it as your base offense. You're not going to punt every time you get the football, are you?

If you want iron-clad language, write some iron-clad language. I'd be fine with the language as written above to back up a call I'd make in an A-11 circumstance. As in, "You're obviously not punting coach, give me a break."

It's a 'spirit of the rules' thing, right? Much of the discussion here about A-11 is that, while it technically follows the rule as written, it violates the spirit of why the numbering exception exists. So people are up in arms.

So if they put in some language to give us a leg to stand on (if you want "obvious punting situation" or "in the referee's judgment" or whatever, knock yourself out), you'd have to have the same opinion about the "spirit" in which it's intended, right?

If team A sends out the 5-8 soccer player and a holder on 4th and 7 from the 10 yard line, they may run a fake, but if I'm the correct-side wing in a four-man game, I'm going under the goalpost because that looks to me like they're going to kick a field goal. I don't need iron-clad language to tell me that.

Unless the Rules Committee removes the numbering exception completely it is going to rely on interpretation.

Rule writing is an art especially when you consider there are those who seek to exploit

I don't get the rationale though, because their reasoning for this is because inside the 30, it's supposedly not that bad of a penalty, which I think can be argued. Also, all the wording says, "automatic first down". So I guess the assumption is only B commits these types of fouls? What happens if it's A that commits the foul? Do they get a pass on the supposed severity of the foul like the "worry" about the current OPI making it just to hard for the poor offense to overcome a major screw up on their part or does this become a loss of down foul too to make it equitable?

The guys up in NCAA seem to be able to figure it out. Maybe us HS guys are just too stupid in your book.

As is officiating itself, n'est-ce pas?

I don't get this, either. NCAA and NFL football have been awarding an AFD on PFs forever. If the offense commits one during a play, they replay the down (or the defense can decline it). If it's after the play, the down counts. No big deal.

I do think that the deck is stacked a bit against the offense -- the AB1 exception with a hold that's 5 yards behind the line takes it from 1st and 10 to 1st and 25. Also, a PF or 15yd FM is severe enough to warrant an AFD as a penalty, IMO.

The rationale may be flawed a bit, but the change would be a positive one, at least that's how I see it.

So a PF foul by B is severe enough to be 15 yds plus a new series but the same foul by A is only severe enough for the 15 yds? Just arguing the other side of the coin here.

I have never had a problem with a LOD provision for the offense on things like OPI. The offense knows what they are doing; the defense does not know what the offense is doing. It is very possible that the defense commits a foul and it was purely a mistake. The offense knows the play, where they are going and why they are going to get there. The offense deserves to lose a down for some of their actions.

Peace

I could see the AFD for a face mask. I could also see the LOD for A. They really have no business anywhere near the face mask making it more likely it was done on purpose.

Not precisely. Fed changed the encroachment rule in 2 stages. During the 1960s (starting i don't know when) it actually depended on how quickly you could whistle! Encroachment killed the ball except when it was put in play before the official could whistle it; probably led to some slow whistles, and it probably meant that on a free kick offside was almost always an option rather than dead ball enforcement. By the early 1970s that exception was gone. But when they deviated originally from NCAA in that regard I don't know; wouldn't surprise me if it was from Fed's major revisions in the 1940s, such as allowing more than one forward pass per down.

The automatic touchback I'd just have to guess at. Probably between 1945 & 1965. During that period Fed had the philosophy of looking for any excuse to kill the ball, because the players are safer when they're not running around.

I believe there was a still earlier period of automatic touchbacks, pre-1912, which was before Fed existed. But before that period, the ball was live.

The specific rationale given for killing the ball with encroachment was that to practically abolish judgement of dual fouls in scrimmage situations, where one team's player going offside drew an opponent into the neutral zone or induced a false start, or when the player in the neutral zone blocked the view opponents had of the ball and so caused them to go offside that way. Free kicks were made the same way just in the interest of keeping the rules simple, I guess.

Robert

They only reason they're "able to figure it out" is that nobody has attempted the A-11 there.

I know we have different horizons about "forever", but NFL's had the AFD a lot longer than NCAA for PFs. I don't remember when NCAA adopted it, but ISTR it's 20 yrs. ago or less.

Waaay back, there was a period of AFD for any penalty against either team! A penalty was deemed to interrupt the continuity of downs, necessitating a new series. I read somewhere in Spalding's that for a while there was confusion on that point, with some officials administering what today would be repeat-the-down following enforcement, and others starting a new series for the team in possession, because the line-to-gain rules didn't specify what constituted the "series" of downs. But that's ancient hx.

The trouble with AFD for fouls by the defense isn't its severity, but its inconsistency. A team that gives up an AFD on 4th down is hurt a lot more than one that gives it up on 1st down. The later the down, the more severe AFD is in practice, yet it's for the same type of foul.

If anything, the rationale is stronger in favor of AFD for the situation given in the proposal, where half the distance appears to be an insufficient penalty. IIRC in Canadian football certain enforcements become AFD within certain distances of the offending team's GL.

BTW, did you know that for quite a while (at least into the 1930s, maybe 1940s), for certain major enforcements the line-to-gain was moved along with the spot? The idea was to penalize field position while not affecting down-&-distance, when the foul was not a tactical one.

Robert

I'm not sure if the information on this website is correct but it has rule changes going back to 1960.

NF Football Rules Changes - pre-1981 - Football.Refs.Org

But then if A fouls, depending on the location on the field, then the penalty may only be 3 yards and replaying the down. I know your situation where there was a facemask and neither team understood the enforcement was weird, but the result would be the same had A fouled on the other end of the field. Changing the penalty to AFD for fouls by B would be giving the offense and advantage. I'm not saying that is bad but I'm not sure that is what the NFHS wants to do.

But A holding could have prevented B from sacking the QB who was standing 10 yards deep. So if A didn't hold it would be 2nd and 20 yards to go. The rule change would take that down to 1st and 20. Once again that favors the offense. It just depends on what the rules makers want as both sides have good points.

Maybe because it's been figured out at the NCAA level what "obvious" means so the a-11 offense is known to be illegal except in said obvious kicking situation so they obviously have not even attempted it. I would think this to be quite obvious.

obvious - easily discovered, seen, or understood

Thanks. So the answer is 1975 for when encroachment became a dead ball foul with no exception.

Obvious that a kick may be attempted? When is it not? It's obvious to me that a kick of some kind may be attempted starting on any down, anywhere. I don't think their wording had anything to do with A-11's not being attempted; it wasn't in Fed either until very recently, and with fewer teams playing NCAA rules, it's obvious to me that the chances of anything new appearing first under NCAA rules is less than under Fed rules.

Robert

But in actual practice, it's not, is it?

If you say "obvious that a kick will be attempted," you're stuck there, too, aren't you?

Some things are, and by rights should be, left to the wise judgment of the experienced football official, IMHO. Else they can just get monkeys to do this.

Of course.

Not this "thing". Otherwise both NCAA & Fed could've defined "scrimmage kick formation" in such a way, leaving it up to the official's judgement.

Think about it. You're not asking the officials to judge what play will be run, which could be worked out by some kind of signal from the captain if you had to, but what kind of play is to some degree likely, before the ball is snapped. It's not even like the judgement about likelihood of a kick during play, which you make to determine whether the kicker gets protection. Before the ball is snapped, that's just a crazy judgement for an official to have to make. Regardless of what play the offense winds up running, who's to say if you were right or wrong?

It seems you want to allow pass plays from such formations even with the numbering exception, just not too often! How are you going to decide that?

Much better to have a clearcut line such as I suggest, whereby the team that uses the numbering exception has to, in effect, decide between kicking and passing threats. Or any number of other clearcut lines that could be drawn, like allowing it only on 4th down. But basing it on "likely" -- which is what you really want, and which no combination of "obvious" and "may" can produce -- is really asking for trouble. I'm surprised anyone would wish for such a judgement call.

Robert

So every time a team has a back at least 7 yds from the line of scrimmage it's obvious that it's a kicking situation? Or, do we have to look at down and distance...or...time of the game...or... time left in the half...or... if they have passed in this situation earlier in the game...or...if they have used the fake punt before...or...

Is it just me? I'm always aware of all of those things when I'm on the field.

It's not just you. It's just some people insist on making a simple observation impossible to comprehend.

So in your games you're often caught off-guard when the holder places the block on the ground an kneels next to it, or when the punter lines up 15 yards deep as if in punt formation? I don't ever remember a situation where a team lined up as if to kick and I thought to myself, "What are they doing?"

Obvious is obvious, and it's obvious some guys just like to argue for the sake of arguing.

OK, you want to leave the judgement in this call? At least take it out of the officials' heads. Call it a scrimmage kick formation based on whether team B has someone deep to receive. Won't work for all scrimmage kick situations, of course, as when a short field goal is anticipated, but then you could say the numbering exception isn't needed when team A doesn't have much ground to cover afer the kick.

How about it? Leave it to team B instead of team A? You drop a deep receiver back, you allow the other team the numbering exception.

The rule would have to tolerate situations where team B shifted to draw an illegal formation foul on A, by giving team A a pass in such situations. You'd have to allow a late substitution by A when B showed their scrimmage kick formation, so they could get their eligible numbers in, and then they'd still be allowed if B shifted out of it before play began or was prevented. So there'd be a bit of a special substitution procedure.

Robert

That wouldn't work. Sometimes B won't drop anyone back in an all out attempt to block the kick. Hey wait a minute, that would mean it's obvious that A is going to kick.

that's good stuff !! :D:D

I'm here until Thursday, try the veal! :D

I know that the Illinois rep to the NF rules comm.will request that the wording on the exception read that it applies only on 4th down.

I officiated two varsity games this year where the A-11 was attempted for most of the game. To me, it reminded me of when I played HS football and you were eligible only by position---numbering was not a part of the rules then. Then football was "modernize" to follow the college numbering rules on eligibility. When I played, the defense had to understand the positioning and had to adapt on every play and the offense had to be clearly in an eligible position not this tight positioning, close to the LOS by backs that we see now. But, football was modernize, eligible numbering was brought in and I assume the committee will feel there should be no going back by taking advantage of an exception that was really brought in to eliminate the need to change jerseys or put on aprons with ineligible numbers. Remember when players used to slip on aprons over their regular jerseys so they could go in in place of a big heavy for punt coverage? That is why the exception was put in.

Maybe all this worrying by some over officials ability to grasp a simple concept of "obvious" can be relieved if the rule is changed to read that the numbering exception is allowed in a SKC when a kick may be obvious "or a legal kick does occur". Then all this concern about SK's in those extremely rare situations that we might all see 2 or 3 times in our careers will not be penalized because a kick actually happened. I would think it would be obvious:) that no flag would be dropped if a kick was made no matter what, but apparently some have to have everything friggin spelled out to them.

If they're not dropping anyone back, then team A doesn't need the speedy guys in coverage, hence no numbering exception. What's wrong with that?

2 things. Who is long snapping and A is going to want to be the first on the ball to down it as deeply down the field as possible.

2 reasons have already been given, but how can what B does determine if A is fouling or not?

A sends substitutes on 4th down to punt. B doesn't "drop anyone back" to cause A to foul.

B thinks that A may fake the punt so they stay in their normal defense and doesn't "drop anyone back". Is that a foul?

What constitutes "dropping back"?

You have to realize that when it is everyone against you (and that everyone includes the NCAA) that maybe you are wrong. This is easy to officiate. Teams never punt on 1st, 2nd, or 3rd down. If a team is going to kick a field goal then a holder will be kneeling on the ground. No one ever drop kicks. Everyone knows when it is a kicking situation. Don't pretend that you can't determine if the team is going to attempt a kick or not.

Then team A would not have followed the special substitutionprocedure provided for these cases, and would not have subbed in players 1-49 & 80-99, so no foul.

It would be an arbitrary distance. I suggest 25 yards because there's a defense that plays a 20 yard deep safety.

That just means I've seen a lot more football than you.

BTW, I saw one HS game on TV in the NYC area where one team ran a good deal of its offense from a long punt formation, either shifting into it or coming out in it straight from the huddle. Sometimes they even punted from it, and not always on 4th down.

So, you want to allow the numbering exception as long as one player is kneeling in position to take the snap? I'm sure A-11 would still work just fine. They have 2 players 7+ yards deep in position to take the snap.

I don't see how it would affect any of this if they did.

Robert

If they line up at least one end numbered 50-79, the long snapper can have an eligible number even without the exception. So they sacrifice an eligible receiver; that doesn't seem to be a problem for you guys who just know that they're not going to pass.

And as far as kick coverage goes when the defense is rushing everybody, even the slow players will beat the defense peeling back if they don't block the kick. As soon as you lose your block, you release. They're still running one way while you're running the other.

Robert

So A can't use the exception unless B sends someone deep. Do you want A to just yell out and ask B if they are sending someone deep? First off B isn't going to line up in a punt return formation until A lines up in a punt return formation (or has the punt team coming on the field). How would it be possible for A to substitute after B is set?

So it's 4th & 15. A sees that B is sending someone deep so they remove the 5 players 50-79. Then before the snap the deep B player moves up to 24 yards deep. How can what B does dictate if A fouls?

So of all the hundreds of thousands of football games everyone on this board has seen we have 1 example of a team that uses a SKF for their normal offense. I don't see how that is relevant.

Also if a team want to line up in a punt formation all the time it is fine, but the numbering exception will not be in effect.

I didn't say that. The A-11 has the players spread across the field. No team is dumb enough to attempt a place kick field goal from that formation, blockers are needed to prevent B from blocking the kick. It is obvious when a team is setting up for a field goal.

As far as I know teams who punt not on 4th down like it to be a surprise and therefore line up in a normal offensive formation therefore the numbering exception has nothing to do with this.

Yes, drop kicks matter. A isn't going to punt on 1st down on B's 10 yard line. They could say that the QB was going to drop kick and therefore they were not in a field goal formation.

Do you understand the reason there is a numbering exception? It is so that teams do not have to do stuff like that.

This has nothing to do with a knowing a team won't pass. You saying that just proves you really don't understand this at all. The numbering exception is used for kicking situations. It has nothing to do with saying a team must kick.

That just means I've seen a lot more football than you.

Many times a team will kick the ball and try to get it to stop near B's goal line. Having fast players on the field means they are better able to run down there and stop the ball before it bounces into the end zone.

To sum this up:

1. The current NCAA wording works perfectly. You should be smart enough to know it is a kicking situation.

2. You're idea about allowing the numbering exception only if B sends a guy deep is extremely stupid due to the many flaws in it.

You didn't read what I wrote in the thread above (or maybe it was fully described in the other thread)? A would look to see if B had someone deep, and if so the officials would allow time for A to sub in numbers outside of 50-79. Team A would be allowed to use the numbering exception until the ball was put in play or play was prevented, even if B shifted out of their scrimmage kick formation.

As above, as long as B showed scrimmage kick formation, those players would be allowed to remain in and use the numbering exception.

Surely from my sampling there'd be other examples in a world this size. How many teams use A-11? You insist on writing the rules to take account of this minuscule number of teams, yet you blithely would sweep aside other minorities of systems that may be out there now or in the future.

Well, then, why not write a rule that draws such a line that doesn't rely on officials' judgement of the play situation? Why not write it like the pass interference rules, or roughing the passer, which don't require you to assess whether you think it's a passing situation?

And so you would make that part of the official's judgement too? Would it surprise you to learn that I've seen an unusual place kicking formation too? Or that some teams are using the place kick for filed position instead of punting? Go figure, but there are some coaches that advocate it, even though I think they're nuts. But the rules should accommodate the plans even of those coaches I think are nuts.

Then I guess I know more about football than you do. Teams will punt from regular punt formation short of 4th down when they have poor field position (especially combined with poor ball control conditions) or little hope of making the line to gain. It's done because the threat of a run or pass in such a situation is greater than on last down, so there's less pressure on the kicker and coverage is easier. One game I saw the L.A. Rams (yes, they used to be in Los Angeles) line up in punt formation 4 times on 3rd down, and they punted on 3 of those 4 occasions and ran on the other.

So explain how that makes it easier for you to tell it's a scrimmage kick situation.

You're so solicitous of team A's being able to throw to any receiver even from scrimmage kick formation that you wouldn't want them to sacrifice even one eligible receiver to get a special snapper in at center, yet you deny them the use of the numbering exception to hide eligible receivers unless you deem it by pure judgement a kicking situation? Why is it so important to preserve up to 6 eligible receivers if you think a kick is likely anyway?

Robert

This would never work. I don't care how many games you have officiated or worked, the game of football is not played that way. A makes the decision of whether or not to punt independently of B's formation. It all depends on down and distance, time, and situation. B would never send someone deep just to allow A to sub. They wouldn't want the "good" snapper in the game. They would wait until the last second then drop someone back. That has got to be one of the wackiest things anyone has come up with on this forum (and that alone says alot!) Furthermore you state, "the officials would allow time for A to sub in numbers outside of 50-79." WTF?

Robert, your much researched knowledge of the game and it's rules is usually impressive and interesting. Your practical knowledge and application often appears to be from another planet.

I mean exactly that. If the formation rules were amended to go along with what I described here, there would have to be a compesnating change in the substitution and delay-of-game provisions. If at any time the ball was ready for play team B assumed scrimmage kick formation (already described), then the officials would stop the play clock, announce the availability of the numbering exception, and allow subs to enter for team A provided they were wearing 1-49 and/or 80-99. A would be allowed time to re-huddle before the play clock was restarted.

This takes all the judgement of the likelihood of a scrimmage kick out of the officials' hands and makes it team B's responsibility. Team B can play vs. kick coverage if they want to, depending on their formation. Because outside of the narrow world of this forum, nobody is proposing a rule hinging on whether a kicking play is likely, any more than they would want to set pass interference rules on whether a pass play was likely. I guarantee you that making it a judgement call would never even be considered by any football rules committee. NCAA's language, which combines "obvious" naively with "may", would be completely ineffectual if anyone attempted to run A-11. If anyone tried A-11 in any circuit playing NCAA rules, it would take an explicit ruling from the organiz'n (such as Texas HSAA) that it was illegal.

Robert

I was going to say the same thing. If A only has 1 snapper who wears #44 then B can never drop anyone back and try to block every kick. With all the bad snaps B will surely have a good shot at blocking them.

Many teams will have only 1, maybe 0 linemen 50-79 for punts. I don't think you understand the numbering exception. It is so teams can put in whoever they want and not have to worry about having 5 numbered 50-79.

Ummm....the numbering exception is not supposed to be used to "hide eligible revievers". That is basically the reason why everyone on here hates the A-11. You claim to be some sort of person who understands football but you can't see why teams need their ends to be elgible recievers. Teams run fake punts and pass the ball to an end.

Yep that is correct. I am against any system which abuses the numbering exception.

A scores a touchdown. They want to bring in players under the numbering exception for the field goal on the try. There is only 13 yards of the field that B can be on. How exactly to they line up in a SKF (25 yards deep) when only 13 yards are available? What about when A is on the 30 yards line and are attempting a field goal and B wants all their players on the line to block the kick? Having B determine what players A can have in the game has to be about the dumbest idea ever; it just doesn't make sense.

So you're saying that if in the BCS championship game A has the ball 1st and 10 on B's 17 yard line. They line up in the A-11, all players elgible numbers, QB 7 yards deep, and you believe that it would not have been a foul?

You really don't seem to understand the numbering exception, let alone the game of football. 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. The play I posted above is not an obvious kicking situation. A is not going to punt on 1st down inside of B's 20 yard line.

"The NCAA wording is perfect". Sorry, nothing is ever "perfect", which may be part of the reason the NFHS rule makers are struggling to announce their decision regarding this situation.

I'm sure if they wanted to be perfect, they could craft language to cover all possible variations and interpretations (both gramatical as well as practical) that could possibly be considered. The problem is such a solution might make the exception larger than the rest of the rule book, and God only knows how many other rules might be unexpectedly affected by the revised wording. Getting rid of the bath water ALONE, is the general objective.

A simpler remedy might be, to add an exception to NF 7.2.6 providing that; "Whenever the SKF numbering exception (NF: 7.2.5.b) is applied, after a huddle or shift all 11 players of A shall come to an absolute stop and remain stationary simultaneously without movement of hands, feet, head or body for at least 3 seconds before the snap." (As opposed to the current 1 second requirement)

Of course the stationary time requirement could be whatever is deemed necessary to eliminate any perceived unfair advantage "A" might be gaining by manipulating the numbering exception to confuse the defense by preventing them from understanding or reacting to "A's" formation.

Anytime "A" elected to use a SK formation, they would be required to remain stationary for that "extended" time frame, which would also require that they be in formation quicker so as to avoid conflicting with the existing DOG parameters.

This would allow: (1) the numbering exception, and all it is intended to accomplish to remain unchanged,
(2)deminish the perceived advantage of unfairly confusing B and depriving them them sufficient time to digest the A formation and identify eligibles,
(3) Allow the essence of the A-11 offense to continue (still subject to rigid enforcement of formation, shift and motion rules),
(4) establish a consistent pattern to enable field officials to recognize eligible receivers
(5) Avoid a whole lot of additional unnecessary (rule related) confusion.

Guys, we're making this way more complicated than it has to be. The phrase "... it is obvious that a kick may be attempted.. " is sufficiant to cover the situation. All that is needed then are officials with good football sense to use their judgement based on the factors that pertain to how the game is played.

Why would they make a decision when they have yet to meet?

Last year the changes were announced on February 12. What makes you think they are struggling to announce anything?

That doesn't solve the problem of teams not having anyone numbered 50-79 on the field.

I don't see what the big deal is. If it is obvious that a kick may be attempted then the numbering exception may be used. It really isn't that hard to recognize kicking situations when they come up. I've never asked myself "what is this team doing?" when a team lined up in a SKF.

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

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.

"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?

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. 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.

Maybe even better yet, would be a simple Case Book interpretation that would clarify whether an A-11 type approach violates the rule. 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. Hopefully, we'll all be advised soon if any adjustments will be made.

They don't even meet until the end of January.

Why would they announce a decision on something that has not even been discussed????

"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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

How does Coach Bryan get around the coaches code of conduct? I have no doubt that he BELIEVES he is o.k. with the rule as it is written, but how does he reconcile the point of the coaches code concerning CIRCUMVENTING the rules?

This is clearly a circumvention of the numbering exception rule. This is black and white.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

"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.

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

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

RichMSN, if you're trying to help make my case for how utterly petty and childish some responses can lower themselves to, you're doing an outstanding job. Thanks.

Thanks...

You validated my opinion. :p

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.

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.

Please highlight one personal attack that I have made.

Good grief!

One example will do. Then again you have to have an example. Accountability is really not your strong suit I see.

Peace

Accountability to whom, for what? Why should I be required to waste any of my time looking through all the garbage to repeat "stuff" that's already been written. Daggo66 chose to ask a stupid rehtorical question and I chose to answer it, directly, to the extent I felt it deserved.

I've stated several times before, when I refer to "you" it is often a collective you (as in pack of hyenas) and I'm not going to bother separating the barbs. "Lie down with dogs (hyenas) you'll get up with fleas"

You are accountable to the people here if you make statements (on here) that are incorrect. And if you choose not to answer questions after making very specific claims, then your credibility with people here goes in the toliet. And whether you realize it or not, if you ever try to talk about things in the future on this site that have nothing to do with the A-11, your comments will be under scrutiny by many people and dismissed by many people based on the fact you cannot answer a simple question. If you choose not to care that is your right, but do not expect people in the future to just give you a pass or accept your point of view.

Do what you want (I do) but then again I do not preach to the entire board to do anything I suggest. I am only talking to you about this issue. ;)

Peace

Just one question - does anyone else see the hypocrisy in complaining about personal attacks in one post and then referring to posters as a pack of hyenas? :rolleyes:

Yes. :)

It must be fun for whoever evaluates his games and tells him what he needs to work on.

Perhaps you could remind me of what, "statements (on here) that are incorrect" I've made that you are referring to. While you're at it, what specific questions, that are within my power to answer, are you seeking guidance on? Questions about why other people may have chosen to do, or not do, something are obviously beyond the reach of my headlights. Perhaps you think your beams shine into the minds of others, sorry mine don't.

I presume that any statements I make here would be scrutinized by anyone who chooses to read them, isn't that what an exchange of perspectives is supposed to be all about. I'm not intending to preaching to anyone, I'm simply stating that certain comments and a certain tone is over the line, and all the empty threats, barking and posturing is not going to bring them back, or move the line.

Why would you think I, or anyone, should expect a pass or anyone should accept a point of view that doesn't merit acceptance based on it's own value? That's not the way things work, usually.

Waltjp, I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think you can actually render a personal attack against a hyena. Although hyenas might not fully understand or agree with that assessment.

This is the most accurate statement you have made the entire time have been here.

Yes you are preaching and that is why you have not shown one link, not one quote or one statement to show how people have been out of line. Just hyperbole from you because you do not like the fact that people can take another side or comment the way they do.

You are just about the only person that has introduced libel and slander in all these conversations, but cannot produce one fact that shows such activity.

I have not asked you to accept one point of view of mine. Personally what you think about this issue is not my concern and never was and never will be. And the funny thing you have hardly read me talk about a point of view. I just want you to show one comment that someone said that was out of line or inappropriate or a lie. All you can do is get made because someone is telling the truth about someone's motives and someone's position.

Here are things you have not been able to dispute: Kurt is selling A-11 materials after claiming he was not. Kurt lied about approval with the NF for this offense when there was no such approval by the NF. Kurt has repeated these lies on this website or other websites. Kurt claims that officials all over the country approve of the offense. The last is not true just by the simple fact of what people are saying on this board alone.

Peace

Now, you're just being silly. Do you really expect me to wallow through all the garbage that's been laid out to prove to you where the smell comes from. Not likely.

Let's look at these "sins" you're so positive and worked up about. "Kurt is selling A-11 materials after claiming he was not" What you decry as being so negative as "selling", might just as accurately be seen as distributing and recurring the cost of doing so. KB obviously believes (right or wrong) in his idea, and has every right to try and promote it and try and persuade others to accept and believe it.

"Kurt lied about approval with the NF for this offense when there was no such approval by the NF. Seems like a really insignificant semantics argument. Is suggesting a declaration that something is "not illegal" a whole lot different than being "approved", possibly a poor choice of words, but does it make ANY real difference?

"Kurt has repeated these lies on this website or other websites." Without a lot more specifics, I can't comment, other than to suggest very often the word "lie" is a really poor choice of words and an excessive exaggeration. You might consider other words like; mistake, exaggeration, misunderstanding, stretch or spin that don't include the connotation of a deliberate and intentional effor to deceive or mislead.

"Kurt claims that officials all over the country approve of the offense." After spending some time on this, and other forums, I might question whether there is ANYTHING "officials all over the country approve of". Would this observation be an exaggeration? Somewhat, but would it have misled any official, who has been awake for the past 2 years, doubtful, so what difference does it make (advantage/disadvantage)?

Be honest, you can stack these, and other, transgressions on top of each other and they pose the same hazard as tripping over a sheet of paper. The indisputable fact is there is nothing that has been stated, suggested or inferred that amounts to anything more than someone trying to promote an idea, he apparently believes in, perhaps excessively at times. So what.

It may very well be an idea that is wrong, an idea that may yet be judged not in the best interest of the game and ultimately prohibited. All that would prove is that it was a bad idea, a different assessment, a different perspective. The personal attacks, negative remarks about integrity and dishonesty, accusations of lying and deliberately trying to deceive, with claims that were so slanted no official on the planet could be misled by them, were all over blown, grossly exaggerated, progressively nasty and usually excessive.

Sorry Rut, but when the blood first hit the water, several of you lost control of your emotions and went in for the kill, which was totally unnecessary and added nothing to the discussion. All this huffing and puffing, demands for evidence and attempts at victimhood are not going to wipe the blood off your chin. Intentional or not, all this bullying, effort to coerce or intimidate and insistence on turning every minor detail, or poorly chosen phrase into it's worst imaginable conspiracy has simply gotten way out of hand. It is what it is, and how you deal with it is not going to change what it is.

Now, you're just being silly. Do you really expect me to wallow through all the garbage that's been laid out to prove to you where the smell comes from. Not likely.

Let's look at these "sins" you're so positive and worked up about. "Kurt is selling A-11 materials after claiming he was not" What you decry as being so negative as "selling", might just as accurately be seen as distributing and recurring the cost of doing so. KB obviously believes (right or wrong) in his idea, and has every right to try and promote it and try and persuade others to accept and believe it.

"Kurt lied about approval with the NF for this offense when there was no such approval by the NF. Seems like a really insignificant semantics argument. Is suggesting a declaration that something is "not illegal" a whole lot different than being "approved", possibly a poor choice of words, but does it make ANY real difference?

"Kurt has repeated these lies on this website or other websites." Without a lot more specifics, I can't comment, other than to suggest very often the word "lie" is a really poor choice of words and a n excessive exaggeration. You might consider other words like; mistake, exaggeration, misunderstanding, stretch, spin that don't include the connotation of a deliberate and intentional effor to deceive or mislead.

"Kurt claims that officials all over the country approve of the offense." After spending some time on this, and other forums, I might question whether there is ANYTHING "officials all over the country approve of". Would this observation be an exaggeration? Yes, but would it have misled any official, who has been awake for the past 2 years, doubtful, so what difference does it make (advantage/disadvantage)?

Be honest, you can stack these, and other, transgressions on top of each other and they pose the same hazard as tripping over a sheet of paper. The indisputable fact is there is nothing that has been stated, suggested or inferred that amounts to anything more than someone trying to promote an idea, he apparently believes in.

It may very well be an idea that is wrong, an idea that may yet be judged not in the best interest of the game and ultimately prohibited. All that would prove is that it was a bad idea. The personal attacks, negative remarks about integrity and dishonesty, accusations of lying and deliberately trying to deceive, with assessments and claimsthat were so slanted no official on the planet could be misled by them, were all over blown, grossly exaggerated and excessive.

Sorry Rut, but when the blood first hit the water, several of you lost control of your emotions and went in for the kill, which was totally unnecessary and added nothing to the discussion. All this huffing and puffing and demands for evidence is not going to wipe the blood off your chin. Intentional or not, all this bullying, attempt to coerce or intimidate and insistence on turning every minor detail and phrase into it's worst imaginable conspiracy has simply gotten out of hand. It is what it is, and how you deal with it is not going to change what it is.