What I Like About the A-11

[Robert Goodman]

You want a simple rule satisfying most of your desiderata? Very well:

Move the requirement of shirts numbered 50-79 out of the requirement for A's scrimmage formation and into the forward pass rules. You can have any unique numbering 1-99 you want on any down, but a forward pass is illegal if thrown during a down where you snapped without 5 players numbered 50-79 on A's line.

Such a regime would be similar to what existed in Canadian football until IIRC 1968, when you could snap with as few as 5 on A's line, but on a pass play you had to have at least 7.

Robert

[ajmc]

Once again, JRutledge, you are way out beyond the reach of your headlights. There is no such thing as the "Bush doctrine" other than the opinions and interpretations made by many public officials, journalists and pundits choosing to aggregate separate, individual and not always connected observations made by a mixture of people, under an arbitrary title created by a slanted media.

If you can refer me to an official document (similar to a written rule) that incorporates the "Bush Doctrine", I will be in your debt. As Gov. Palin learned, responding to a mythical target, that is defined by whomever chooses to define it, without understanding exactly what their unique version of defininition is, can be problematic.

Your assessment, of what I presume you meant to define the "Spirit of the Rules", is simply inadequate. No doubt the Official's Handbook, Case Book and other official publications are designed to further explain the logic behind rules and assist an official in understanding and correctly applying their judgment and ruling. Any rule/exception is always designed to address a particular situation(s), but as we have seem continually over the years, rarely is any rule able to cover all possibilities, present and future.

Continually basing your position on repeating the question "why" is a strategy best reserved for toddlers, who usually reach, and end, at a point of just being annoying. I certainly can't guarantee, but am reasonably confident, the issue of the A-11 Offense as related to the numbering exception, was not in the least bit a consideration during the actual creation of the exception. You can beat your breast, and line up all the like thinkers you can, but the idea of the A-11 offense exploiting the numbering exception will most likely remain an unintended consequence.

In and of itself, that is not a big problem, because all the rule makers have to do is contemplate the loophole that's now been discovered and decide whether it should be allowed to continue, or take steps to revise the language and close it. Really no big deal, but until they do something, it remains a loophole.

As for your comments, why should I be insulted? Some of your input has been informative and relevant, some has been just silly and stubborn, some has been needlessly and excessively negative but that reflects badly on you rather than the targets and some has flown way over my head.

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.

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.

[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.

[TXMike]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

Just give me a point why the A-11 is good for us officials?

Well....to save KB the effort, and since we all know them so well...
1 - There will be fewer injuries if everyone uses the A11 (and we as officials want fewer injuries, right)
2 - The game is moving to a more wide open and spread offense and this is just the "ogical" extension (and we as officials do not want to stand in the way of "progress" do we)
3 - This offense gives "disadvantaged" teams a "more level playing field" (and we as officials are looking for a "fairer" game aren't we?)

The word "smoke" which has now made its way into this thread should be more appropriately used as part of the phrase "smoke and mirrors" which is what this is A-11 all about.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by TXMike

Well....to save KB the effort, and since we all know them so well...
1 - There will be fewer injuries if everyone uses the A11 (and we as officials want fewer injuries, right)
2 - The game is moving to a more wide open and spread offense and this is just the "ogical" extension (and we as officials do not want to stand in the way of "progress" do we)
3 - This offense gives "disadvantaged" teams a "more level playing field" (and we as officials are looking for a "fairer" game aren't we?)

The word "smoke" which has now made its way into this thread should be more appropriately used as part of the phrase "smoke and mirrors" which is what this is A-11 all about.

4. Jeff Fisher loves it and is going to incorporate it into the Titan system.

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Simply removing the numbering exception may be akin to "throwing the baby out with the bath water." Presuming (considering no argument to the contrary) the numbering exception has been working well, is widely accepted and has not caused any major problems, why toss it?

I don't think there's any disagreement that this A-11 offense uses the language of the rule to create a situation the rule makers likely never envisioned. Loopholes are a natural and consistent by product of any rule and are created simply because the language used in creating the rule never allows for the unanticipated.

The key to effective rule making is not to create an intended cure that is worse than the problem it was intended to correct.

I like the cut of your jib, sir.