What I Like About the A-11

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Something worth remembering, as we continue to hash out this problem, is that there are really big differences between those who play HS football, those who go on to play college football and those few, who make it on into the NFL.

First, the A-11 is not a problem for the rules, simply removing the numbeing exception removes the "problem." Consider, not the rules makers consider not only the players but if the officials can officiate the rule. While the NFL and NCAA have seven officials, there are a few NFHS varsity games with four officials. They have a difficult workload without the A-11.

Trying to tailor the wording of any rule, so it fits all 3 categories is a difficult, if not impossible, challenge. We currently have separate rules codes, that are basically similar, but contain a lot of specific differences that take into consideration the differences in physical attributes, maturity and the experience factors of each level regarding both players and coaches.

One size rarely, if ever, fits all, and what might work fine for a goose just doesn't cut it with ganders. It's not just a question of which phrasing works better, because each phrasing is (or at least is intended to be) related to it's specific audience.

Again, the NFHS code places a premium on safety especially considering the participants are younger than the average NCAA player. Also, the code considers many high school officials are not equipped as NCAA officials. For years the NFHS has tried to stay away from exceptions to the rules, in other words, using the basic code which ALL the codes subscribe.

We saw NFHS implement the post scrimmage kick enforcement and it took three years to get it right. The numbering exception has been around for decades and sufficed until the intent was circumvented.

Now, the Rules Committee is attempting to tighten the rule to the original intent which would place it in line with the NCAA and NFL codes and not some divergent direction.

From the proposals placed before the Committee the A-11 as advertised will be eliminated. The basic code has linemen numbers (50-79) on the interior O-line and that basic tenet of the game will not be compromised.

[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.

The issue of "The Spirit of the Rule" is like smoke, it is totally dependent on the opinion of whomever is claiming it and provides for unlimited posturing. I suspect the rules makers are thoroughly evaluating this situation and are carefully considering language that may not only close an existing loophole, but avoid different loopholes from forming.


I wouldn't presume the NFHS's main consideration is placing any revision, "in line with the NCAA and NFL codes, as much as it is in dealing with this issue as it relates to the game of football played at the High School level. The presumption that the game is better at the collegiate level and better yet at the professional level in nonsense. The talent and skill levels are better at each level, but the game itself is different and specifically tailored to suit each level it's played at.

Sometimes rules that make perfect sense for young men between 19-25 years old, or grown men between 24-40 years old just don't work as well for students between 13-18 years old, which is why we have different rules codes.

[TXMike]

Originally Posted by ajmc

The issue of "The Spirit of the Rule" is like smoke, it is totally dependent on the opinion of whomever is claiming it and provides for unlimited posturing.

What ????? Are you saying you do not know what the spirit and intent of the numbering rule and exception are or that you just choose not to believe what others who have researched it are telling you that it is. The spirit and intent of this rule is clear and is documented as I have shown before.

But I digress...all you guys need to do in Fed is mimic the NCAA rule on this. While not all NCAA rules are written better than Fed rules, on this one it is. Team A (or K as you call it) needs to have the right to put cover guys in and we do not want to go through some convoluted jersey changing process to let them do that. Heck even the NCAA rule would let this A11 BS go on on one down and I am not arguing to remove that.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by TXMike

all you guys need to do in Fed is mimic the NCAA rule on this.

Agreed. I hope this is where FED goes.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by ajmc

...

The issue of "The Spirit of the Rule" is like smoke, it is totally dependent on the opinion of whomever is claiming it and provides for unlimited posturing. I suspect the rules makers are thoroughly evaluating this situation and are carefully considering language that may not only close an existing loophole, but avoid different loopholes from forming.


I wouldn't presume the NFHS's main consideration is placing any revision, "in line with the NCAA and NFL codes, as much as it is in dealing with this issue as it relates to the game of football played at the High School level. The presumption that the game is better at the collegiate level and better yet at the professional level in nonsense. The talent and skill levels are better at each level, but the game itself is different and specifically tailored to suit each level it's played at.

Sometimes rules that make perfect sense for young men between 19-25 years old, or grown men between 24-40 years old just don't work as well for students between 13-18 years old, which is why we have different rules codes.

You make an excellent point as the A-11 is exactly that smoke and the Rules Committee will be the smokeater.

What I would love to see or hear is some concrete reason why the A-11 should be allowed as all the smoke has been filled with broad platitudes about how it would be better, how it is safer, and the point 13-18 year olds should have different rules than older players which I cannot totally disagree. But, how all that justifies the A-11 puzzles me.

For example, the A-11 is actually practiced in many youth football programs as they don't conform to the numbering rules for various reasons. Of course, they don't pass much. They don't usually kick that much. And, my pet peeve, they don't usually have "real" coaches.

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

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

You make an excellent point as the A-11 is exactly that smoke and the Rules Committee will be the smokeater.

What I would love to see or hear is some concrete reason why the A-11 should be allowed as all the smoke has been filled with broad platitudes about how it would be better, how it is safer, and the point 13-18 year olds should have different rules than older players which I cannot totally disagree. But, how all that justifies the A-11 puzzles me.

For example, the A-11 is actually practiced in many youth football programs as they don't conform to the numbering rules for various reasons. Of course, they don't pass much. They don't usually kick that much. And, my pet peeve, they don't usually have "real" coaches.

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

Not sure of your intent here... but

Don't you mean, "what is good for the game?" It certainly isn't about us.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Not sure of your intent here... but

Don't you mean, "what is good for the game?" It certainly isn't about us.

If it is not good for us, it is not good for the game. These things are not mutually exclusive.

Peace

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If it is not good for us, it is not good for the game.

Well, that may be a bit of a blanket statement, Jeff.

Many times we joke about how we would prefer that teams never pass or kick the ball because that would make our lives easier. Of course, we are joking (largely) because the difficulty of this avocation is one thing that attracts many of us. If it was easy, everybody would do it. It's not. Some like the challenge.

Now, there's "good for us" and "easy for us." Sure, you'd like things to not be overly or unnecessarily complicated for us, but something can be good for the game and yet be difficult for us to officiate. That's part of the cross we bear when we choose to do this.

I'd say "You know what? Maybe I'm not cut out for this, I can't do X, Y or Z" before I'd say, "I wish they'd change the rules to make my life easier."

But that's just me.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

Well, that may be a bit of a blanket statement, Jeff.

Many times we joke about how we would prefer that teams never pass or kick the ball because that would make our lives easier. Of course, we are joking (largely) because the difficulty of this avocation is one thing that attracts many of us. If it was easy, everybody would do it. It's not. Some like the challenge.

Now, there's "good for us" and "easy for us." Sure, you'd like things to not be overly or unnecessarily complicated for us, but something can be good for the game and yet be difficult for us to officiate. That's part of the cross we bear when we choose to do this.

I'd say "You know what? Maybe I'm not cut out for this, I can't do X, Y or Z" before I'd say, "I wish they'd change the rules to make my life easier."

But that's just me.

We are not talking about passing or not passing. We are talking about a rule that may or may not be more difficult to officiate for all levels and all circumstances. Do not take a statement in one context and start adding it to another situation.

The point is the term is not mutually exclusive, because if officials have a problem enforcing a rule, then the game is going to suffer. And since officials enforce rules of the game, we better be able to consistently understand and handle rules that we must deal with. They do not change rules language for just the benefit of the "game." They do this so the officials can understand the intent or apply the rules much more consistently.

Peace

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If it is not good for us, it is not good for the game. These things are not mutually exclusive.

Peace

I'm wondering what you thought I meant by my statement.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Not sure of your intent here... but

Don't you mean, "what is good for the game?" It certainly isn't about us.

My point and Rut confirmed it, in the opening to this post there are a number of cons mentioned that my belief increases officials' workload and efficiency. I've heard all the points about the A-11 but not one about how officials could handle it or be proficient officiating it.

If officials cannot officiate it, then, the game itself suffers. Case in point, for years ineligible downfield was five yards and loss of down. The Rules Committe felt officials were not calling it because of the severity of the penalty, therefore, dropped the loss of down provision.

We are an integral part of the game. If we cannot or will not enforce a rule it is useless.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

You make an excellent point as the A-11 is exactly that smoke and the Rules Committee will be the smokeater.

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

Ed, sorry but i don't think the objective should be whether something, "is good for us officials". What matters is whether something is "good for the game".

Prior to the current numbering restrictions being in place, the standard crew size was 4 (sometimes only 3) officials, and somehow the games were managed to be played anyway. Granted, the game was not nearly as wide open or pass involved, but the principles were exactly the same as they are today. Players on each end of the line and those in the offensive backfield were eligible to receive a forward pass.

Establishing the numbering requirements we have today certainly made monitoring eligibility a lot easier. I try not to guess what the rules makers might, or might not do, but I suspect you'd have to have a list of things to contemplate going into the triple digits before fining a suggestion to scrap the current numbering designations.

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.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Ed, sorry but i don't think the objective should be whether something, "is good for us officials". What matters is whether something is "good for the game".

Back on point. I listed three things that hamper the efficiency of officials with the A-11. I asked if anyone knew of pros for officials with the A-11. In all the bits and bytes used up on this forum about the A-11 there has not been one scrap of information on how officials are impacted good ro bad by the A-11.

If the A-11 makes the job of officiating more difficult that is a problem. If there is a point I missed that makes it easier for officials I am waiting to hear it.

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.

Don't compare the Bush Doctrine with the work of the Rules Committee!

One of the things they do when a rule is implemented is document in the rule book the reasoning behind the rule change. This is helpful for those officials who read it because you can understand the "spirit and intent" of the rule and act accordingly.

And it is kind of hard to say the opinions expressed here are just opinions when several the authorities in several states have not just expressed their opinion but acted to declare the A-11 the travesty it is. Therefore, you may choose to lambast the majority here for our opinions but it an opinion of the majority.

However, we would welcome your opinion.

[JRutledge]

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.

The Bush Doctrine was spelled out by the administration and shared to the press. When people do not know what it is, that is because they have not read the public record on the topic.

The same goes for rules. Rules have often been spelled out and the reasoning behind those rules has also been made clear. There is a reason there is a Handbook and a reason the casebook exists. And the intent of the scrimmage kick formation is clear just in the way the exception is read. It is rather clear that no one expects this exception (or you would not call it an exception for scrimmage kick formations) to be used on every down and every situation. If this was intended, why have rules that require very specific numbering without the formation and say who can and who cannot go downfield on passes?

You were not insulted by my comments where you?

Peace

[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