I do not recall ever saying that I thought it would never grow legs and start running.

I'm saying it's not affecting us now.

Like economists who have predicted 12 of the last 6 recessions, it seems like some may be ascribing too much power to this particular brand of offense.

Sure, it may be the new "West Coast Offense" and take hold some day, maybe even soon, but consider that football coaches are notoriously traditional, people who do avant-garde things like this when it comes to football are looked at askance, and it seems to me that the majority of high schools in this country either (a) don't have a need for an offense that allows them to compete with bigger, stronger, faster teams in a higher class because not everybody has the same situation as the originator in California where there weren't a lot of teams nearby in their class or (b ) don't have the personnel who could run it effectively, either physically or mentally.

Sure. Doesn't mean he can do it. My point is that even though he SAYS that lots of the powers that be have approved it, they haven't. And that even though he SAYS (and ESPN Magazine says) that it's spreading, we see no REAL evidence that it is. Yet there's all this hysteria about it.

You want to round up the villagers with pitchforks and torches, be my guest. But if I suggest that maybe the "nip it in the bud NOW" folks are being a touch overreactionary, I'd likely get the same response as those who said maybe one might want to tone down the rhetoric just a bit and stay on the civil side, the respectful, decent side. We all saw how the piranha came out on that one.

Which doesn't mean he'd be able to do it anyway. For reasons (a) and ( b) I mention above, and with the preliminary evidence that it doesn't seem to be sweeping the country.

For me, I just want to officiate football. But I'm done talking with y'all about it. Take care.

I don't believe this is true.

ajmc,
I understand your point regarding "spirit and intent," however you are arguing for argument sake. You know darn well what the spirit of the numbering exception rule is. I think you just like to pick things apart. Officiating is not mathmatics. We don't need an equation to prove every point. I could say the spirit and intent of the roughing the passer rule is to prevent injuries to passers. Pretty hard to argue that point, but if you really wanted to, you could. Now you are arguing about the Bush doctrine which was mentioned as an analogy. You are starting to remind me of my ex-wife. She would argue and before long the argument became about the argument itself instead of the original topic. Playing devil's advocate when discussing rules is great and I think extremely beneficial, however picking nits is not.

This reminds me of an old saying about the baseball rules -- the rules are written by gentlemen for gentlemen. A finite set of rules for an infinite set of situations and it's up to the participants to play within the spirit and intent of the rules.

I do see this as an ethical problem, personally. Exploiting a loophole that's called a "scrimmage kick exception" when there's never any intent to use this exception for a scrimmage kick situation is ethically shaky, IMO. Especially considering the history of the exception and why it was put in place in the first place.

I had a coach who once, on third down, lined the quarterback up just a bit deeper in the shotgun formation and then screamed like a banshee at us when we didn't flag the defense for roughing the snapper. Same thing. The rule is there so centers don't get hurt, not to pick up 15 cheap yards and a first down.

I've had officials argue with me (I think on this forum) that this should be flagged. I disagreed because I didn't think the snapper protection applied if they weren't obviously going to perform a scrimmage kick. If they decided to line up the QB a couple yards deeper, they were on the center was on his own. They said that wasn't supported by the rules which is true. I argued it wasn't the spirit of that rule though.

I still run into coaches at the youth level who don't understand that rule and actually teach the long snapper to keep his head down in an attempt to draw a penalty. Not only do they disregard a rule to gain an advantage, they disregard the safety of their players. I've even had JV coaches line their punters up 3 to 5 yards deep in order to draw a roughing call. I always let them know that if they are going to try that then I am giving the benefit of the doubt to the defense.

Everybody understood what the numbering exception is designed to do, even Kurt Bryan. The idea behind numbering helps officials pick out linemen and determine eligibility, helps the defense identify eligibility, even helps the offense by the passer being able to identify by number eligible receivers. It was never meant to be used for plays from scrimmage other than kicks. And, no one can argue against that.

Coaches agree numbering and the exception work. Officials live by numbering. The Rules Commitee based upon input decided the numbering exception would improve the game for "scrimmage kicks." It was never meant to be run as a new offense.

Therefore, I do not see why Coach Bryan feels this is such an important innovation to the game and so much energy is spent on trying to convince the Rules Committee of its importance. The unfortunate reality is while the numbering exception is good for the game, there are proposals to eliminate it in order to shut down the A-11.

For what it is worth, the A-11 to me is a travesty that hopefully the Rules Committee at its meeting sees through the smog and gives it a ride into the history books. It creates a situation that places an undue workload on officials and no one has identified an upside for officials.

It may sound as those my focus is on officials as well it should be but it is also on the game as there is an expectation of perfection and anything that might hinder that expectation cannot be taken politely.

Again, I hope the Rules Committee does away with the A-11.

And, nothing personal against any person and their opinion, I'm just expressing my own.

Damn hyena.:D

Escuse me daggo66, I'm not trying to nitpick anything. I didn't bring this dopey, "Spirit of the Rules" factor into this discussion, it was brought in to nitpick by those who couldn't argue the issue on it's merits.

There has been a growing frequency of some trying to add perceived intentions and all sorts of silly imagined accusations into more and more situations though, and most of it is pure BS.

All these esoteric arguments are suitable for Dr. Phil to address. Football has done pretty well for a long time without all the deep analysis.

We don't officiate black and white. If we did the game of football wouldn't exist as we know it. Advantage/disadvantage is usually a strong consideration. Understanding not only the rule, but the intent of the rule is paramount when making the decision of whether or not to apply it. Every year our RI talks about not calling small infractions that are away from the play. How can you possibly decide whether or not to call holding when you don't consider the intent of the rule?

If you were responding to my comment daggo66, I was not referring to advantage/disadvantage or considering the basic intent of a rule. I was referring to those who seem to want to imply some imagined sinister motivation to a foul, to support applying a harsher penalty.

Sometimes judging intent is a necessary part of applying a penalty, but that only goes so far and applies to a limited number of situations like Intentional grounding and some USC situations. Sometimes players, especially at the HS level, just make mistakes or don't execute as well as they are expected. If their mistake calls for a penalty, fine, but there's no need to look for a conspiracy or premeditation to justify applying a harsher penalty. When something happens that calls for a player ejection, it should be crystal clear and apparent where no doubt exists.

I'm sorry, your time is up. If you wish to continue arguing you must pay.

I know this is going to be hard for you to understand or believe, the entire reason this rule is being considered as a change, is the fact that the rule had a very specific intent or spirit involved. You cannot bring the conversation up without talking about that part of it. That is not something you nitpick when the NF asked people in the survey about this very topic. I know you are late to the conversation that we have had for about 2 years already, but please. The more you say things the more you show you do not even know the basics of this conversation.

Dude, we get it, you like the offense. That is not the point and never was.

And if the NF changes the rule to the other levels, what are you going to say then?

Peace

I'll be that there is a warning to the FED that doing so just may subject them to a restraint of trade lawsuit. :D

Oh goodie...we haven't had an A-11 thread in quite a while now.