What I Like About the A-11

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Welpe

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

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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.

[rockyroad]

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?"

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Mike L

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

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.

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by ajmc

If you were responding to my comment daggo66, I was not referring to advantage/disadvantage or considering the basic intent of a rule.

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.

[Mike L]

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

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

football coaches are notoriously traditional, people who do avant-garde things like this when it comes to football are looked at askance,

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

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by daggo66

You know darn well what the spirit of the numbering exception rule is.

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

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

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.

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

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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

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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by daggo66

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 revision is in order. Either allow the A-11 or dis-allow it.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

[Ref inSoCA]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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?"

The team here that ran it went 1-9.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I've seen punts and place kicks on 1st down, and we know that other plays are frequently run from kick formations.

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