What I Like About the A-11

[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

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by 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.

Actually there was, but I am not going to debate politics with you when you cannot understand basic concepts with rules of the game of football.

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

It is inadequete to you, because you do not understand how rules are made or how they are talked about. You just started right?

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

I am not sure how I am stubborn, I am on the majority side of this issue. You on the other hand have tried to preach to people what they should think. I do not care what you think or what conclusions you understand. The reality is in less than a month this issue will be resolved for at least one year. If you do not understand the spirit and intent of rules, you must not do a lot of reading of things that come from the NF or their publications they produce. It is often that many rules are expressed. Just because you do not understand them, does not mean they are there. And usually those things are known better when you have doing this for some time.

I used to say a long time ago, but what I say here must be working, because I got my games. And when I say thing here I might not always be right, but people listen (which is the only goal I care about as it relates to any internet board in the first place). You are the person having a tough time gaining respect by the other people here.

BTW, the comments about you being insulted, was a joke and a way to mock your overly sensitive attitude about a discussion we are having. I am talking the exact same way I did to you as in the other thread and you should be insulted. Considering you have not shown any evidence how I said anything to you other than facts, has really undermined your credibility with me and others on this site. Now that is not my problem that is one you will have to deal with. Personally I have better things to worry about.

Peace

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Actually there was, but I am not going to debate politics with you when you cannot understand basic concepts with rules of the game of football.
Peace

No there's not, and unless and until you produce one, you're whistling past the cemetery.

It's unfortunate that you seem eager to reduce this discussion to a level of personal animosity. Unfortunately, you misunderstood what was intended as a simple suggestion, to alert you that you had let your emotions take control of your argument and allowed unnecessary and tactless personal attacks to replace what your position on the issue actually was.

Rather than even consider that advice, you chose to increase your beligerance and bluster and try and "outshout" anyone who dared disagree with you. That approach doesn't work all that well when you reach adulthood. Sadly the more frustrated you get, the lower you reach. Your assessment of what amounts to "respect" is yours to formulate, but again, you've displayed an area where your reach far exceeds your grasp of this concept as well. I didn't realize you are authorized to speak for others, I wonder if they realize that.

It's OK to disagree about something, without becoming necessary to be disagreeable. I've learned a lot more about football, and a lot of other things, when I've been shown to be wrong rather than insisting I must have been right. Actually, I try and keep an open mind and find myself able to be persuaded by a cogent, intelligent argument, presuming it's based on reality and discernable fact. Conversely, I've been able to develop a reasonably strong sense of BS repellant, which is often preceeded, and identified, by silly attempts at insults, and mocking, which by the way doesn't work all that well when the person trying to mock you, doesn't actually mean anything to you or much matter.

[Mike L]

Although it was not called as such at the time since it's author was Paul Wolfowitz, this document is what gave rise to what is known as the "Bush Doctrine". What the doctrine/document means is the US has every right to pre-emptively strike anyone or any nation that it perceives as a threat to our national security.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...MDStrategy.pdf

sorry about helping to take the thread off track, but someone had already asked.

[ajmc]

Thanks Mike, but for some reason the paper you referenced bears the title, "The National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction". What exactly does, "gave rise to what is known as the "Bush Doctrine" actually mean.

So is this the "Bush Doctrine", or is it actually what some media outlet decided should be referred to as the "Bush Doctrine", and is it guaranteed that anytime anyone refers to a "Bush Doctrine", that are actually referring to this specific report, or could they be referring to something different, that they might consider the "Bush Doctrine"?

Has there been some official designation allowing this document to be referred to as the "Bush doctrine"? I don't think so

My analogy was intended to suggest that just because there is a widely accepted generalized term applied to something, that has not been specifically identified, and is subsequently subject to wide, different interpretations and different versions that term, regardles of how common the reference might be, there are multiple versions of what the "Spirit of a Rule" may actually mean.

One understanding of "the spirit of the rule" may be different than another understanding of the "Spirit of THAT rule", as perceived by whomever is using the term and both versions, although different, may be just as reasonable.

I don't think there is any reasonable doubt that the spirit of the numbering exception had any intention to be used to expand into what is referred to as the A-11 Offense, but that is only my presumption. The language of the exception did not prohibit that type of expansion to the usage of the numbering exception, which absolutely exploits the oversight.

Exploiting an oversight is searching, and finding, a loophole that becomes a way around something until the way around is blocked, which has yet to happen. Ir's not immoral, not illegal and not necessarily unethical it's simply finding a workable path that nobody expected would ever be found.

All that will take to block the path is the stroke of the rule maker's pen, which apparently is a decision yet to be finalized. If that happens, it will make coach Bryan wrong, as to his interpretation. It will not make him a liar, a scoundrel or any of the other terms thrown at him, it will just make his assessment wrong and what he thought was a great idea unworkable.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

You are correct.

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.

Let me set the record straight. I started this thread because I have heard the "ads" for the A-11 and been totally unimpressed but did take time to evaluate the effect on officiating the game.

Therefore, I ask you or others to give me some solid points or facts as to the effect of the A-11 on officiating. As we all know if officials have a negative opinion about a rule they may choose not to enforce it or circumvent it.

One of the great things about this country and this forum is freedom of expression. I did not hide the fact I don't like the A-11 but I did offer my opinion and asked for rebuttal. Nothing personal.

Yes, the majority on this forum appear against the A-11 and there has not been any information that has persuaded me otherwise. We are entitled to our opinion as well as you are entitled to yours. There is no need to personalize.

Whatever decision the Committee makes I will enforce regardless of my opinion.

[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.