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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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