I've got my calendar set for June to remind me to start an A-11 thread. It'll be like the annual Baseball thread in the basketball forum.

Interesting, but many felt, reasonably, that she was at least as qualified as the top of the other ticket.

You won't need to wait that long. Just wait until the rules changes for 2009 are announced in a few months then we can have another 20 page thread on the A-11, Kurt Bryan, hyenas and any other topic that comes to mind. :eek:

What really gets me is that if this is such a "revolutionary" offense, you would think it would be unstoppable and would help the team put up high scores and huge margins of victory. But it didn't. The Piedmont team won 8 games, but only put up big numbers twice - they scored 55 points against a 2-8 team, and 50 points against an 0-10 team. The rest of their scores looked like any other HS football team (24-18, 20-17, etc.) How is that "revolutionary" and going to "change the way the game of football is played?":rolleyes:

Dopey? Ethics is dopey? The reason why a rule is put in place is dopey? Playing within the spirit and intent of the rules is dopey?

With all due respect, sir, it's clear to me what (actually, who) is dopey.

M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: I told you once.
M: No you haven't.
A: Yes I have.
M: When?
A: Just now.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't
A: I did!
M: You didn't!
A: I'm telling you I did!
M: You did not!!
A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
M: Oh, just the five minutes.
A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not.
A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
M: No you did not.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't.
A: Did.
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.

This is where your disconnect is. The "spirit" of the rule is synonymous with the "intent" of the rule. That is why you see it written as spirit AND intent. Coaches very often get confused reading a rule because they apply basic english or worse yet coach-speak to what they are reading. I always tell them they have to read the definitions first, therefore they can understand the spirit and intent of the rule even if what they read appears to mean something else. In this usage "intent" refers to what the rule makers intended. This has nothing to do with the player's "intent" of his actions which you went on to further explain in your post.

Nice. I thought about going with the abuse dept lines, but realized the stupid git probably wouldn't get it.

Reminds me of what one coach told me about our 12U team last year: that the league wouldn't let me have the QB take the snap while facing a sideline. Considering that our club practically was the league, that was funny!

And when coaches aren't hearing it from other coaches, they're getting it from parents, all of whom expect your game to look like whatever they see on TV.

Robert

We all do, but I don't see how that helps. Are you willing to have team A sacrifice eligible receivers if they use the numbering exception with shifting? Or to abolish the numbering exception? Or to abolish eligible receiver numbering? Or some other rule that's easy to administer?

It seems the "spirit" would be to have the numbering exception, and to allow team A to occasionally hide an eligible receiver by such means, but not often! How often, then? That's why "spirit" isn't going to help here.

Robert

The spirit of that rule is to protect the snapper while allowing the ball to be snapped a long way back accurately. I don't see where kicking has anything to do with it other than as an excuse to name the formation in the rule book. However, I do see a coach trying to pick up a cheap foul unfairly by disguising the formation.

Robert

Of course it is! However you have to look at it in the content of the time it was written. A new variable has since been added, therefore a rivision is in order. Either allow the A-11 or dis-allow it. Anyone who thinks there is a problem with the NCAA wording is just being plain ridiculous. While there is nothing preventing a team from punting on first and ten, that certainly isn't an obvious kicking situation. Late in the game, A is winning by 3 TD's, 4th and 20 from their own 20, is certainly an obvious kicking situation even though they don't have to kick. Come on now, any of you that do not know what an obvious kicking situation is doesn't belong anywhere near the game. As far as all of the situations that fall between those 2, well that's what we get paid for, making judgement calls. Once in a while someone will slip one in, just as many things getted slipped in now. However the NCAA wording will no doubt prevent it from becoming the entire offense.

You don't need a revision to allow it, it's already allowed.

Oh, that's just swell -- bring up the extremes and then just claim to be able to make the judgement in all intermediate cases. I've seen punts and place kicks on 1st down, and we know that other plays are frequently run from kick formations. So...what mental calculation of odds do you have to do to determine whether a kick is likely enough to allow the numbering exception to be used? What odds do you have to give in your head (knowing the bet will never have to be collected) on a kick?

From the quote of David Nelson in this thread, it seems the only way the NCAA wording "works" is that there's a gentleman's agreement not to exploit it. Like the one that came about after someone discovered the loophole re batting the ball forward -- but at least that loophole was patched up before the next season.

Robert

The team here that ran it went 1-9.

Under what circumstances have you seen a team punt on first down?