The Official Forum
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Football (https://forum.officiating.com/football/)
-   -   What I Like About the A-11 (https://forum.officiating.com/football/50750-what-i-like-about-11-a.html)

daggo66 Fri Jan 09, 2009 04:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmc (Post 566842)
the A-11 offense, as distasteful and threatening as some may hold it, does not violate the current rule. Whether the arguments against it are sufficient to motivate the rule makers to ammend the rules to prevent this application, remains to be seen. That answer should be coming in the relatively near future.

That's exactly the point everyone has been making. You just seem to use 50 words when 5 will do. How long does your coach's pre-game last?

Rich Fri Jan 09, 2009 04:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmc (Post 566842)
Far be it from me to get back to reality, but as I've tried, apparently unsuccessfully, to get across to you from the very beginning, is that I have agreed that the best way to deal with this offense is to hold it tightly to the rules regarding formation requirements, shifts and motion.

What appears to have started this, seemingly endless exchange, was my suggestion that your divergence to using personal attacks and unfounded accusations against the proponents of this offence, rather than sticking to the football rule related components, detracted from your argument and was generating a negative perception. A simple suggestion, but you chose instead to rise up in indignation in response and start blasting away with all sorts of additional accusations and defensive arguments that are totally ancillary to the subject.

It wasn't a big deal, you just momentarily stepped over the line (of good taste) and the simple solution would have been to evaluate your comments, and hopefully realize you should step back without any comment or explanation being necessary. You elected, however, to take the discussion down a "who are you to tell me anything" road, which not surprisingly leads usually to nowhere. We took a long detour through the "Spirit of the Rule" discussion which, although a valid and important comcept in general, as it applied to this discussion turned out to be pure smoke.

If you're trying to suggest we all have the right to jump off a bridge, I'd agree that we, "do not have to accept what is widely accepted and enforce rules they way they see fit in their games", but that's terrible advice because we all do have to justify our decisions and are held accountable to following generally acceptable interpretations and policies, whether we agree with them completely, or not.

What you describe as your State's advice on how to deal with this offense, is exactly what I have recommended from the very beginning. It is the weight of consistent compliance and precise execution with the requirements of the formational, shift and motion rules that I believe renders this offense unreliable.

My reference to perfection and consistency was a response to your mentioning the overt lack of consistency in application of the "hurdling" rule. I was simply suggesting that even though the pursuit of consistency, like perfection, is never attainable, the effort of that pursuit often generates a higher level of excellence.

Despite all the detours this topic has taken, and all that are still available, the main path remains unchanged, the A-11 offense, as distasteful and threatening as some may hold it, does not violate the current rule. Whether the arguments against it are sufficient to motivate the rule makers to ammend the rules to prevent this application, remains to be seen. That answer should be coming in the relatively near future.
There's an old baseball umpire adage -- you should be able to explain anything in 5 words or less. In your case, try 100 words or less. :D

Robert Goodman Fri Jan 09, 2009 04:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by LDUB (Post 566839)
It isn't complicated at all. I have never seen a team use the A-11 except for some video clips. In ever game I have ever seen in my entire life when A lines up in a scrimmage kick formation it has been obvious to me that a kick will likely be attempted. Of course they may run a fake play but I have never once thought to myself "why is this team in a SKF?"
Isn't that circular? The legality of A-11 would be based on how common it was, because you're basing your judgement on the frequency that teams use scrimmage kick formation for various plays?

Quote:
The wording works fine in NCAA. Stop pretending that you are that dumb that you can't figure out if a team is likely to attempt a kick. A has the ball 1st & 10 on the 50 yard line and they come out in the A-11....does anyone actually think the team is going to punt? Of course not.
But NCAA didn't even use the word "likely", only "may be"!

Would you tolerate a rule regarding pass interference by B based on the likelihood of its being a pass play? After all, players of B don't know whether an opponent going downfield is a potential receiver if they don't know if it's a pass play. So you could formulate the rule based on official's judgement of whether a pass is likely. But I bet you wouldn't.

Here and in the other thread I've suggested several clear-cut alternatives to your judgement call on A-11, but it seems posters here would rather curse the darkness.

Robert

LDUB Fri Jan 09, 2009 04:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman (Post 566871)
Isn't that circular? The legality of A-11 would be based on how common it was, because you're basing your judgement on the frequency that teams use scrimmage kick formation for various plays?
It is based on how often teams make scrimmage kicks. That is what you don't get.

All you have to do when a team is in a SKF is as yourself if you think they are going to kick. 2nd & 2 in the middle of the field is not a kicking situation, it is obvious to everyone. 4th & 2 in the middle of the field is a kicking situation, it is obvious to everyone.

daggo66 Fri Jan 09, 2009 07:43pm
On the defensive side of the ball it can be difficult to tell who is on and who is off the line. In the A-11 they step up at the last moment. The primary responsibilty for ineligibles downfield is the umpire who normally just has to look for numbers. With the A-11 you could have someone outside his vision with a normally ineligible number who is now eligible. Other officials now have to help out with that responsibility. Not impossible to work with, just more difficult. Normally the U could flag #50 for being downfield and no one would question it. With the A-11, you might have to confer with the wings first if there is doubt. In youth ball I usually ask #50 which position he was on the last play and they always tell the truth. It's youth ball and no one complains. Certainly not a mechanic I would employ at the high school level.

LDUB Fri Jan 09, 2009 10:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by msavakinas (Post 566889)
I have a question... I do not do football anymore, and only did it for 3 years. In the NCAA and NFL aren't there rules that say a player cannot be an elgible receiver if he is "covered" up by someone who is closer to the sideline? Do these restrictions apply in a punting formation or not?
Yes, only backs and ends can be eligible receivers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by msavakinas (Post 566889)
If so, then it would seem to me like in the NCAA and NFL it would not be difficult to point out who the elgible receivers would be because they would not be "covered" up by someone outside of them. I know this might be a little difficult to officiate because of the large "splits" between the people on the line but it would still be easy to point out those who are not on the LOS and those who are. And the one who is on either end could still be elgible. But this restriction might not apply or I might have it wrong... please let me know.
It can be hard if the 6 linemen other than the snapper do not shift onto the line until right before the snap.

Robert Goodman Fri Jan 09, 2009 11:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by msavakinas (Post 566889)
I have a question... I do not do football anymore, and only did it for 3 years. In the NCAA and NFL aren't there rules that say a player cannot be an elgible receiver if he is "covered" up by someone who is closer to the sideline? Do these restrictions apply in a punting formation or not?
In NFL you can't have an ineligible number in an eligible position or vice versa unless they report so; the umpire relays that info to the other team.

In NCAA, as long as you have 5 ineligible numbers on the line it's OK. If one of them's at an end or back or T-quarterback position, the team is just sacrificing an eligible receiver. This is not uncommon when teams line up in or shift into an unbalanced line as a surprise; they may do so by shifting an end off one side and a back onto the line on the other, which does result in the erstwhile end's becoming ineligible to receive a forward pass; the defense is likely not to recognize that situation and cover that player anyway, although that player is not allowed to take advantage by going downfield as a decoy for another receiver.

Quote:
If so, then it would seem to me like in the NCAA and NFL it would not be difficult to point out who the elgible receivers would be because they would not be "covered" up by someone outside of them.
Heck, they played with the forward pass for long enough without any eligible receiver numbering, so it's not insuperable. Tackle eligible plays were fair game, but it's not as if they were any guarantee of success, any more than any other type of deception in the game.

Robert

Ed Hickland Fri Jan 09, 2009 11:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmc (Post 566648)
Just for the heck of it, where, or more importantly why, do you guys come up with this nonsense.

...

Daggo66, How do you get, from anything I've suggested to, "This means I can count on not having to attend a state rules interpretation meeting this year!"? I don't know what State you're referring to, but I would presume your State's interpretation meeting usually focuses on discussing and explaining WHAT IS WRITTEN, rather than drift off to acknowledge a lot of misunderstandings that people may have presumed were intended or imagined.
ajmc,

An interpretation meeting is just that, a meeting about interpreting the rules as they are written and addressing possible misinterpretation of the rules.

Too bad the subject of this thread, A-11, was not the subject of a rule interpretation or at least not understood causing us to spend countless posts and hours debating it.

Robert Goodman Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:16am
For those of you who are advocating that the numbering exception be made a judgement call (based on likelihood of a kicking play), would you at least require the referee to inform both teams when, in his opinion, they were in a kicking situation?

Robert

waltjp Sun Jan 11, 2009 09:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman (Post 567236)
For those of you who are advocating that the numbering exception be made a judgement call (based on likelihood of a kicking play), would you at least require the referee to inform both teams when, in his opinion, they were in a kicking situation?

Robert
Robert, you're just having some fun now, right???

TXMike Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:10am
In the legal system we have a term called "the reasonable man standard". It is used in different situations, i.e. self-defense cases. The jury is asked to apply the "reasonable man" standard when deciding if someone's actions were acceptable. This means the law does not have to spell out ever specific instance when a person can use deadly force in self-defense but rather the jury is permitted to decide if someone acted reasonably in whatever method they chose to use for their self-defense.

I would suggest that a similar "reasonable man" standard could be used here and therefore would not require an official to inform teams but rather would let him rely on the teams being as "reasonable" as him when determining if it was obvious a scrimmage kick might be attempted.

ajmc Sun Jan 11, 2009 11:45am
Fabulous idea, of course then we'd have too expand the "reasonable man standard" to cover coachs (both head and assistant), spectators, announcers, sports writers and nit pickers. Probably life, in general, would be a lot, or at least nicer.

LDUB Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman (Post 567236)
For those of you who are advocating that the numbering exception be made a judgement call (based on likelihood of a kicking play), would you at least require the referee to inform both teams when, in his opinion, they were in a kicking situation?

Robert
You must be joking.

It isn't based on the likelihood of a kicking play. It is based on the likelihood that a kick may be attempted. It really isn't complicated...if it is a kicking situation and A is in a SKF then the numbering exception is used. I find it hard to believe that you are too dumb to recognize a kicking situation when it comes up.

Robert Goodman Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:56pm
The legal system has judgements like that all over the place, because life is a situation we're forced into. But games are invented. We have the chance to make game rules that reduce uncertainty, and I'm amazed that several posters here actually want to increase uncertainty in football. The reason I asked the above question is that although making scrimmage kick fomation a judgement call based entirely on an official's opinion of the game situation would be a terrible thing, at least the uncertainty could be mitigated if the teams were told in advance what the ref had in mind. What objection could there possibly be to requiring an announcement?

Nobody has answered my question of why the logic of "play situation" shouldn't be applied to the passing rules by Fed too. What if it looks like a pass play was called, but team A failed to pass (and thereby draw a foul by B) because their receiver(s) was/were not open because he/they was/were contacted in a way that would've been illegal on a pass play? Actually NFL does have a rule that depends on whether it looks during play as if a pass is still likely, so it's not unprecendented. Do you see why Fed spared their officials of this judgement? Even the NFL had the sense to base it on a judgement during play rather than of the play situation before the down.

Come to think of it, why not ban the forward pass except in officially-judged "passing situations"? If such judgements are so easy and equitable, wouldn't it simplify the officials' jobs to not be surprised by pass plays?

Robert

Robert Goodman Sun Jan 11, 2009 01:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by LDUB (Post 567345)
It isn't based on the likelihood of a kicking play. It is based on the likelihood that a kick may be attempted.
:confused:

LDUB Sun Jan 11, 2009 01:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman (Post 567353)
Nobody has answered my question of why the logic of "play situation" shouldn't be applied to the passing rules by Fed too. What if it looks like a pass play was called, but team A failed to pass (and thereby draw a foul by B) because their receiver(s) was/were not open because he/they was/were contacted in a way that would've been illegal on a pass play?
That is hard to understand. Can you give a better example including what foul would have been called?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman (Post 567353)
Actually NFL does have a rule that depends on whether it looks during play as if a pass is still likely, so it's not unprecendented.
Can you quote this rule?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman (Post 567353)
Come to think of it, why not ban the forward pass except in officially-judged "passing situations"?
I'm fine with that. In every game I have ever seen it has been common for teams to pass on 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th down no matter where they are located on the field as well as during tries. So every scrimmage down the entire game would be a passing situation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman (Post 567353)
The reason I asked the above question is that although making scrimmage kick fomation a judgement call based entirely on an official's opinion of the game situation would be a terrible thing
If it is such a terrible thing then how come it works perfectly in NCAA games?

LDUB Sun Jan 11, 2009 01:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by LDUB (Post 567345)
It isn't based on the likelihood of a kicking play. It is based on the likelihood that a kick may be attempted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman (Post 567357)
:confused:
It doesn't matter if the officials think that A will run a fake and not kick the ball, all that matters is that it is obvious that a kick may be attempted. All that matters is if it is a kicking situation or not, not the actual probability of A kicking.

Robert Goodman Sun Jan 11, 2009 01:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by LDUB (Post 567362)
That is hard to understand. Can you give a better example including what foul would have been called?
There was a discussion of that here a while back -- that Fed had an illegal contact rule against potential receivers. I hadn't been aware of it until I read it here.

Quote:
Can you quote this rule?
Not right now, but the wording was approximately that the restriction on B continute "until the runner demonstrated no further intention to pass".

[quote]I'm fine with that. In every game I have ever seen it has been common for teams to pass on 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th down no matter where they are located on the field as well as during tries. So every scrimmage down the entire game would be a passing situation.{/quote]
And I've seen kicking on all downs, so we're even.

Quote:
If it is such a terrible thing then how come it works perfectly in NCAA games?
It's just a matter of the number of teams playing under the different codes. It took many years before the A-11 was concocted; it's just a matter of time in NCAA, now that the gentleman's agreement that was apparently understood at the time the numbering exception has passed from everyone's memory.

Robert

Robert Goodman Sun Jan 11, 2009 01:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by LDUB (Post 567369)
All that matters is if it is a kicking situation or not, not the actual probability of A kicking.
You're serious about this? That "kicking situation" refers to something other than that probability? That the likelihood of a kick's being attempted means something different from the likelihood of a kicking play? If your use of the language is that idiosyncratic, how does anybody understand you?

Robert

LDUB Sun Jan 11, 2009 01:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman (Post 567373)
You're serious about this? That "kicking situation" refers to something other than that probability? That the likelihood of a kick's being attempted means something different from the likelihood of a kicking play? If your use of the language is that idiosyncratic, how does anybody understand you?

Robert
Yes, that is correct. The A-11 offense is legal on 4th down in NCAA rules. The officials may feel that A is not going to kick, but it is still obvious that a kick may be attempted.

LDUB Sun Jan 11, 2009 02:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman (Post 567370)
There was a discussion of that here a while back -- that Fed had an illegal contact rule against potential receivers. I hadn't been aware of it until I read it here.
I don't understand how what formation a team uses has anything to do with illegal use of hands fouls.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman (Post 567370)
And I've seen kicking on all downs, so we're even.
In every game teams pass on all downs. How many thousands of games does one have to watch to see a team punt on first down? We're not even.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman (Post 567370)
It's just a matter of the number of teams playing under the different codes. It took many years before the A-11 was concocted; it's just a matter of time in NCAA, now that the gentleman's agreement that was apparently understood at the time the numbering exception has passed from everyone's memory.
I don't know what you are talking about. The A-11 is not legal in NCAA rules. Even Kurt Bryan knows that.

Robert Goodman Sun Jan 11, 2009 08:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by LDUB (Post 567385)
I don't understand how what formation a team uses has anything to do with illegal use of hands fouls.
I was trying to show how using the same logic as the judgement call you so blithely want to introduce, other rules could be made judgement calls too, and migh produce more equitable results in some cases, but the resulting uncertainty still wouldn't be worth it.

Robert


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:01pm.
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1