What I Like About the A-11

[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.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by 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.

No, the Bush Administration did not specifically name this document the "Bush Doctrine", but the principles it outlined is what became known as the "Bush Doctrine" because it was produced, endorsed and implemented by the Bush administration. It is the documentation you asked for but appear to be unwilling to accept. Who actually came up with calling the "Bush Doctrine" I don't know, but I'm sure someone takes credit for it and if you search long enough you may find a first reference out there somewhere.
Are you trying with all this to somehow imply no Bush Doctrine exists and/or no-one knows what it really is despite all evidence to the contrary? Read the opening quote by the Pres on the document itself that was produced by the White House to get a head start.

[ajmc]

Mike, I'm not disputing that the "The National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction" likely represents what even the Bush Administration might consider the "Bush Doctrine". What I'm trying to suggest is that when referencing something specific, you need to call it by it's proper name, not whatever nick names it's been given. Gov. Palin could have avoided a lot of unnecessary flack, if she simply responded, "What exactly do you mean by the "Bush Doctrine", and then went on to address specific points that were suggested. It was a loaded question, designed as a "gotcha" and it was successful

Let me try and step back from a political analogy and point back towards football. We all know how inportant Rule 2 is, because the definitions there are the only definitions that matter to the game of NFHS football. You can look up tripping in the dictionary and it's a little different than the tripping definition included in Rule 2.

But, if you were to trip an old lady carring a football down mainstreet, a policeman might still arrest you because his definition doesn't make allowance for tripping a runner, even though the old lady was carrying a football. When a Pop Warner coach yells "chop block" from the sideline, it's very possible that his definition of chop block is very different than what you know is the official NFHS definition, which is the only one that matters.

All I was trying to suggest about the term "Spirit of the Rule" is that it very often is used in a broad, often vague sense, and means different things to different people, so there is no single "official" definition to specifically relate it to. Basically it can mean whatever you want it to mean.

Was this rule likely intended to relate only to scrimmage kick situations, probably. Was there any idea to expand the exception to prohibit formations that nobody though of, probably not, because nobody envisioned the A-11 Offense when the rule was written. Does the language used in the current version of the numbering exception leave room to drive a truck through, absolutely. Does that circumvent or exploit the rule, absolutely. Is that exploitation dishonest, illegal, immoral or unethical, really doubtful.

All this weeping and gnashing of teeth about the "Spirit of the Rule" is little more than a smoke screen. Whether you don't like what it does, or how it set about doing it, doesn't matter. It doesn't violate the rule, and exception, as currently written, so the only choices available are rewrite it, or let it continue as is. That decision will be made by the rule makers and they're not going to pay a lick of attention to all the insults, speculations, presumptions and the rest of a lot of pure BS.

I anticipate there will be some sort of revision and I hope it just answers this question without creating a bunch more unanticpated consequences. We shall see.

[SethPDX]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

"Here's what I like about the A-11: it goes to eleven."

The best assessment, now or ever, of the a-11.

And the current administration's doctrine will not be all that relevant in less than two weeks.

[UmpJM]

Now see, there's part of the problem. No wonder poor Sarah couldn't answer the question. Others knowledgeable in the arena suggest that this document:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/nss2006.pdf

originally published in September, 2002, and then subsequently updated and republished in March, 2006 is the definitive statement of "The Bush Doctrine".

I believe the phrase "The Bush Doctrine" was first used by rabid neocon wingnut, I mean respected conservative commentator, Charles Krauthammer in February, 2001 in reference to the extreme unilateralism already being evidenced in some of the Bush Administration's policy decisions and actions.

Although the Bush Doctrine is hard to nail down because it changes all the time, the enduring precepts basically espouse the right of the US to wage "preemptive war" (most recently endorsed by Chancellor Adolf Hitler and Prime Minister Hideki Tojo), an approach to foreign policy that says f**k you to the rest of the world, ignores the existence of the US Constitution, and discounts actual facts and informed counsel in favor of wishful thinking.

Happy to clear that up for everyone.

JM

P.S. I'd be happy to wager a large sum of money that the current occupant has never actually read any of the documents that are alledged to articulate the principles of "The Bush Doctrine".