What I Like About the A-11

[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

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

I understood your intent, Jeff. You missed mine, apparently. I was just saying that it's not necessarily what's easiest for us that's best for the game.

I would say if the officials have a problem enforcing the rule, then the game may suffer, but it's not necessarily because of the rule. It may be that we as officials have to step it up and get 'er done and not say "It's just too hard for us. Make it easier."

That was my point. We had 100+ years of football before PSK, which, to my knowledge, makes things harder for us. But it's not going away, so it's incumbent upon us to figure it out.

It may very well be that a rule or a procedure is unworkable. That is bad for the game. But it shouldn't necessarily be judged on how "difficult" it is for us as officials. Our jobs are, by their very nature, difficult.

How difficult you want them to get is a matter of degrees.

We do not make policy, gentlemen. We are the instruments of that policy.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

I understood your intent, Jeff. You missed mine, apparently. I was just saying that it's not necessarily what's easiest for us that's best for the game.

I would say if the officials have a problem enforcing the rule, then the game may suffer, but it's not necessarily because of the rule. It may be that we as officials have to step it up and get 'er done and not say "It's just too hard for us. Make it easier."

That was my point. We had 100+ years of football before PSK, which, to my knowledge, makes things harder for us. But it's not going away, so it's incumbent upon us to figure it out.

It may very well be that a rule or a procedure is unworkable. That is bad for the game. But it shouldn't necessarily be judged on how "difficult" it is for us as officials. Our jobs are, by their very nature, difficult.

How difficult you want them to get is a matter of degrees.

We do not make policy, gentlemen. We are the instruments of that policy.

My point was that these things were not mutually exclusive. And I would disagree with you that we are only instruments, when we are asked all the time and used as the barometer for how and why rules are implemented.

Peace

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

My point was that these things were not mutually exclusive. And I would disagree with you that we are only instruments, when we are asked all the time and used as the barometer for how and why rules are implemented.

Peace

We are asked, but we are not the final authority.

(I would also take just a moment to say that, while I disagree with Jeff on some things from time to time, I appear to be one of the few people here who has actually met him and dealt with him and one of fewer who can actually say that I like him, personally. Jeff's a damn good official and a dedicated one who not only cares a hell of a lot about the game of football, but also about the people who officiate it, especially those who are starting out and just trying to improve themselves. But - and not that he needs me to point this out to him and not that he particularly cares - his strong-mindedness, a benefit as an official, rubs some people here the wrong way, and I get that. For the sake of fairness, I just wanted to point out to all y'all from the perspective of someone who's dealt with Jeff Rutledge the official and the person that he's not always just trying to piss y'all off.)

Okay, end digression.

Here's one thing we're missing: suppose they tighten the numbering exception, whether it's through the proposed language or some other language that makes the most sense to however many people have the final say on it. Whatever.

Seriously - how many officials and how many teams is this really affecting? Raise your hand if you've seen the A-11. I know Kurt would have you believe (and ESPN Mag would play up) that it's a great many, but how many of us, the foot soldiers, the ones who are actually out there, and who form a fairly decent cross section of football officials across the nation, will actually be affected by a change in this rule?

I would guess it's not a lot. So while we can have strong opinions about the offense, its intent, its inventor, the pub it gets, what words might be used to close the loophole or whatever, it seems to me to be a lot of sound and fury about something that probably isn't going to affect the majority of us, or even a decent number of us. Unless I'm reading this whole thing wrong.

[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.