What I Like About the A-11

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

I understood your intent, Jeff. You missed mine, apparently. I was just saying that it's not necessarily what's easiest for us that's best for the game.

I would say if the officials have a problem enforcing the rule, then the game may suffer, but it's not necessarily because of the rule. It may be that we as officials have to step it up and get 'er done and not say "It's just too hard for us. Make it easier."

That was my point. We had 100+ years of football before PSK, which, to my knowledge, makes things harder for us. But it's not going away, so it's incumbent upon us to figure it out.

It may very well be that a rule or a procedure is unworkable. That is bad for the game. But it shouldn't necessarily be judged on how "difficult" it is for us as officials. Our jobs are, by their very nature, difficult.

How difficult you want them to get is a matter of degrees.

We do not make policy, gentlemen. We are the instruments of that policy.

My point was that these things were not mutually exclusive. And I would disagree with you that we are only instruments, when we are asked all the time and used as the barometer for how and why rules are implemented.

Peace

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Ed Hickland: I realize there is a history documented when establishing a rule to document what the intention was, at the time of creation and understand that is a valuable tool in understanding how to comply with that particular rule. I certainly could be wrong, but I suspect that the concept of a possible A-11 Offense application NEVER occurred to that decision process and is simply something that subsequently fell outside the discussion. What we now are confronted with as an unintended consequence.

You are correct.

I'm not intending to lambaste anyone, other than those who have needlessly lowered the tone of this discussion with personal attacks and regretable presumptions. Neither am I overly impressed with any opinion when it's viability is based solely on numbers, rather than context.

Like some others, you seem to presume that since I don't share all your extreme conclusions, I must therefore support this approach. For the umpteenth time, I do not. Actually I agree with many of the arguments suggested against this concept, and have repeatedly stated I do not think this formation is viable, under it's own weight.

Many of the tangents that have been advanced, seem just like unnecessary baggage and paths that lead nowhere. The issue is in the hands of the rule makers, where it has actually always resided, and they will guide our response, sooner or later, in one direction or the other. Likely whichever decision they make, will produce some level of opposition, and as is usually the case, that won't make much difference other than provide noise.

Let me set the record straight. I started this thread because I have heard the "ads" for the A-11 and been totally unimpressed but did take time to evaluate the effect on officiating the game.

Therefore, I ask you or others to give me some solid points or facts as to the effect of the A-11 on officiating. As we all know if officials have a negative opinion about a rule they may choose not to enforce it or circumvent it.

One of the great things about this country and this forum is freedom of expression. I did not hide the fact I don't like the A-11 but I did offer my opinion and asked for rebuttal. Nothing personal.

Yes, the majority on this forum appear against the A-11 and there has not been any information that has persuaded me otherwise. We are entitled to our opinion as well as you are entitled to yours. There is no need to personalize.

Whatever decision the Committee makes I will enforce regardless of my opinion.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Actually there was, but I am not going to debate politics with you when you cannot understand basic concepts with rules of the game of football.
Peace

No there's not, and unless and until you produce one, you're whistling past the cemetery.

It's unfortunate that you seem eager to reduce this discussion to a level of personal animosity. Unfortunately, you misunderstood what was intended as a simple suggestion, to alert you that you had let your emotions take control of your argument and allowed unnecessary and tactless personal attacks to replace what your position on the issue actually was.

Rather than even consider that advice, you chose to increase your beligerance and bluster and try and "outshout" anyone who dared disagree with you. That approach doesn't work all that well when you reach adulthood. Sadly the more frustrated you get, the lower you reach. Your assessment of what amounts to "respect" is yours to formulate, but again, you've displayed an area where your reach far exceeds your grasp of this concept as well. I didn't realize you are authorized to speak for others, I wonder if they realize that.

It's OK to disagree about something, without becoming necessary to be disagreeable. I've learned a lot more about football, and a lot of other things, when I've been shown to be wrong rather than insisting I must have been right. Actually, I try and keep an open mind and find myself able to be persuaded by a cogent, intelligent argument, presuming it's based on reality and discernable fact. Conversely, I've been able to develop a reasonably strong sense of BS repellant, which is often preceeded, and identified, by silly attempts at insults, and mocking, which by the way doesn't work all that well when the person trying to mock you, doesn't actually mean anything to you or much matter.

[Mike L]

Although it was not called as such at the time since it's author was Paul Wolfowitz, this document is what gave rise to what is known as the "Bush Doctrine". What the doctrine/document means is the US has every right to pre-emptively strike anyone or any nation that it perceives as a threat to our national security.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...MDStrategy.pdf

sorry about helping to take the thread off track, but someone had already asked.

[ajmc]

Thanks Mike, but for some reason the paper you referenced bears the title, "The National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction". What exactly does, "gave rise to what is known as the "Bush Doctrine" actually mean.

So is this the "Bush Doctrine", or is it actually what some media outlet decided should be referred to as the "Bush Doctrine", and is it guaranteed that anytime anyone refers to a "Bush Doctrine", that are actually referring to this specific report, or could they be referring to something different, that they might consider the "Bush Doctrine"?

Has there been some official designation allowing this document to be referred to as the "Bush doctrine"? I don't think so

My analogy was intended to suggest that just because there is a widely accepted generalized term applied to something, that has not been specifically identified, and is subsequently subject to wide, different interpretations and different versions that term, regardles of how common the reference might be, there are multiple versions of what the "Spirit of a Rule" may actually mean.

One understanding of "the spirit of the rule" may be different than another understanding of the "Spirit of THAT rule", as perceived by whomever is using the term and both versions, although different, may be just as reasonable.

I don't think there is any reasonable doubt that the spirit of the numbering exception had any intention to be used to expand into what is referred to as the A-11 Offense, but that is only my presumption. The language of the exception did not prohibit that type of expansion to the usage of the numbering exception, which absolutely exploits the oversight.

Exploiting an oversight is searching, and finding, a loophole that becomes a way around something until the way around is blocked, which has yet to happen. Ir's not immoral, not illegal and not necessarily unethical it's simply finding a workable path that nobody expected would ever be found.

All that will take to block the path is the stroke of the rule maker's pen, which apparently is a decision yet to be finalized. If that happens, it will make coach Bryan wrong, as to his interpretation. It will not make him a liar, a scoundrel or any of the other terms thrown at him, it will just make his assessment wrong and what he thought was a great idea unworkable.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Thanks Mike, but for some reason the paper you referenced bears the title, "The National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction". What exactly does, "gave rise to what is known as the "Bush Doctrine" actually mean.

No, the Bush Administration did not specifically name this document the "Bush Doctrine", but the principles it outlined is what became known as the "Bush Doctrine" because it was produced, endorsed and implemented by the Bush administration. It is the documentation you asked for but appear to be unwilling to accept. Who actually came up with calling the "Bush Doctrine" I don't know, but I'm sure someone takes credit for it and if you search long enough you may find a first reference out there somewhere.
Are you trying with all this to somehow imply no Bush Doctrine exists and/or no-one knows what it really is despite all evidence to the contrary? Read the opening quote by the Pres on the document itself that was produced by the White House to get a head start.

[ajmc]

Mike, I'm not disputing that the "The National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction" likely represents what even the Bush Administration might consider the "Bush Doctrine". What I'm trying to suggest is that when referencing something specific, you need to call it by it's proper name, not whatever nick names it's been given. Gov. Palin could have avoided a lot of unnecessary flack, if she simply responded, "What exactly do you mean by the "Bush Doctrine", and then went on to address specific points that were suggested. It was a loaded question, designed as a "gotcha" and it was successful

Let me try and step back from a political analogy and point back towards football. We all know how inportant Rule 2 is, because the definitions there are the only definitions that matter to the game of NFHS football. You can look up tripping in the dictionary and it's a little different than the tripping definition included in Rule 2.

But, if you were to trip an old lady carring a football down mainstreet, a policeman might still arrest you because his definition doesn't make allowance for tripping a runner, even though the old lady was carrying a football. When a Pop Warner coach yells "chop block" from the sideline, it's very possible that his definition of chop block is very different than what you know is the official NFHS definition, which is the only one that matters.

All I was trying to suggest about the term "Spirit of the Rule" is that it very often is used in a broad, often vague sense, and means different things to different people, so there is no single "official" definition to specifically relate it to. Basically it can mean whatever you want it to mean.

Was this rule likely intended to relate only to scrimmage kick situations, probably. Was there any idea to expand the exception to prohibit formations that nobody though of, probably not, because nobody envisioned the A-11 Offense when the rule was written. Does the language used in the current version of the numbering exception leave room to drive a truck through, absolutely. Does that circumvent or exploit the rule, absolutely. Is that exploitation dishonest, illegal, immoral or unethical, really doubtful.

All this weeping and gnashing of teeth about the "Spirit of the Rule" is little more than a smoke screen. Whether you don't like what it does, or how it set about doing it, doesn't matter. It doesn't violate the rule, and exception, as currently written, so the only choices available are rewrite it, or let it continue as is. That decision will be made by the rule makers and they're not going to pay a lick of attention to all the insults, speculations, presumptions and the rest of a lot of pure BS.

I anticipate there will be some sort of revision and I hope it just answers this question without creating a bunch more unanticpated consequences. We shall see.

[SethPDX]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

"Here's what I like about the A-11: it goes to eleven."

The best assessment, now or ever, of the a-11.

And the current administration's doctrine will not be all that relevant in less than two weeks.

[UmpJM]

Now see, there's part of the problem. No wonder poor Sarah couldn't answer the question. Others knowledgeable in the arena suggest that this document:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/nss2006.pdf

originally published in September, 2002, and then subsequently updated and republished in March, 2006 is the definitive statement of "The Bush Doctrine".

I believe the phrase "The Bush Doctrine" was first used by rabid neocon wingnut, I mean respected conservative commentator, Charles Krauthammer in February, 2001 in reference to the extreme unilateralism already being evidenced in some of the Bush Administration's policy decisions and actions.

Although the Bush Doctrine is hard to nail down because it changes all the time, the enduring precepts basically espouse the right of the US to wage "preemptive war" (most recently endorsed by Chancellor Adolf Hitler and Prime Minister Hideki Tojo), an approach to foreign policy that says f**k you to the rest of the world, ignores the existence of the US Constitution, and discounts actual facts and informed counsel in favor of wishful thinking.

Happy to clear that up for everyone.

JM

P.S. I'd be happy to wager a large sum of money that the current occupant has never actually read any of the documents that are alledged to articulate the principles of "The Bush Doctrine".

[JRutledge]

ajmc,

It is sad that the main point of this, you do not even understand what we are really talking about. You are too caught up in what you feel someone thinks personally about you than what we are actually discussing. If you are I quit officiating tomorrow, not many people would care. And you think that because you do not understand something, this is personal?

You have more to learn than I gave you credit for.

Happy off-season.

Peace

[TXMike]

Originally Posted by ajmc

TXMike, what I'm saying is defining "The Spirit of the Rule" is like defining "The Bush Doctrine", everybody thinks they know what it is, but can NEVER actually put their finger on it because it's NEVER been spelled out. It turns out to be everybody's own perception of what they think it should be. You haven't documented anything but your opinion and the opinions of other like minded people, which may certainly be reasonable, but is still just an opinion.

Maybe you are too new here to have seen this but I posted this back in August when we were talking about this BS:
Source: Anatony of A Game, David M. Nelson

NCAA
1966 - Mandatory numbering for guards, tackles and center of 50-70 established.

1968 - Requirement to have 5 players numbered 50-79 on the line of scrimmage was established after forceful action by one committee member, Coach John Vaught of Mississippi, who had seen his team lose 2 games to the Crimson Tide of Bear Bryant on tackle-eligible passes.

1981- the numbering exception came into existence so that teams no longer had to put numbered vests on subs put in for punt coverage. Excepted players had to report to U before the down.

1985 - Requirement to report was eliminated but language was tightened up to ensure teams did not use the numbering exception to get around the eligibility rules.

Interesting to note what Mr Nelson had to say re the 1985 change (he wrote the book in 1991) "The coaches were placed on their honor and players with 50-79 numbering exceptions in a scrimmage-kick formation were relieved from reporting to the umpire. The system has worked very well; no attempts have been made to usurp the rule."

[Ed Hickland]

Excellent summary TXMike illustrating the spirit and intent of the rule.

Officials who understand the history, spirit and intent of the rules can make better decisions on the field. But, maybe we do become overprotective of the game when we feel some creative coach decides to "make the game better."

If you consider the history of the numbering exception you have to accept the A-11 is making a travesty of the game as it was never intended to be used as it is.

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

My point was that these things were not mutually exclusive. And I would disagree with you that we are only instruments, when we are asked all the time and used as the barometer for how and why rules are implemented.

Peace

We are asked, but we are not the final authority.

(I would also take just a moment to say that, while I disagree with Jeff on some things from time to time, I appear to be one of the few people here who has actually met him and dealt with him and one of fewer who can actually say that I like him, personally. Jeff's a damn good official and a dedicated one who not only cares a hell of a lot about the game of football, but also about the people who officiate it, especially those who are starting out and just trying to improve themselves. But - and not that he needs me to point this out to him and not that he particularly cares - his strong-mindedness, a benefit as an official, rubs some people here the wrong way, and I get that. For the sake of fairness, I just wanted to point out to all y'all from the perspective of someone who's dealt with Jeff Rutledge the official and the person that he's not always just trying to piss y'all off.)

Okay, end digression.

Here's one thing we're missing: suppose they tighten the numbering exception, whether it's through the proposed language or some other language that makes the most sense to however many people have the final say on it. Whatever.

Seriously - how many officials and how many teams is this really affecting? Raise your hand if you've seen the A-11. I know Kurt would have you believe (and ESPN Mag would play up) that it's a great many, but how many of us, the foot soldiers, the ones who are actually out there, and who form a fairly decent cross section of football officials across the nation, will actually be affected by a change in this rule?

I would guess it's not a lot. So while we can have strong opinions about the offense, its intent, its inventor, the pub it gets, what words might be used to close the loophole or whatever, it seems to me to be a lot of sound and fury about something that probably isn't going to affect the majority of us, or even a decent number of us. Unless I'm reading this whole thing wrong.

[TXMike]

Obviously it has not affected many yet..it is too new. The point is to nip this in the bud before it DOES affect many people. Just because you may think it will never grow legs and start running is no reason NOT to shut it down before it takes off. You clearly must see the intent of the inventor to make this spread throughout the land and what he has to gain by it doing so? As another poster mentioned earlier, he could have just stayed out in his tiny little unknown piece of the woods and run this to his heart's content and nobody would have raised much fuss. He did not and his reasons for not doing so are plainly obvious.

[Forksref]

When your candidate can't answer simple questions the best thing to do is BLAME THE MEDIA!

As someone who voted for McCain in the past, I was very disappointed in his selection of Palin, or should I say, a Valley Girl. I think his advanced age affected his judgment. So sorry, because he is a truly good man. The continued effort for her to be in the spotlight and the continued hero-status she is given by some GOPers is disappointing. We should strive to obtain the best and most qualified candidates, not a token woman. My wife was incensed that they chose her, a truly unqualified candidate as the first woman on a national GOP ticket. It was an insult to women.

As for A-11, I am not worried about it. If I ever see it, it shall be a challenge, but that is what we are out there for.