What I Like About the A-11

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by TXMike

Obviously it has not affected many yet..it is too new. The point is to nip this in the bud before it DOES affect many people. Just because you may think it will never grow legs and start running is no reason NOT to shut it down before it takes off.

I do not recall ever saying that I thought it would never grow legs and start running.

I'm saying it's not affecting us now.

Like economists who have predicted 12 of the last 6 recessions, it seems like some may be ascribing too much power to this particular brand of offense.

Sure, it may be the new "West Coast Offense" and take hold some day, maybe even soon, but consider that football coaches are notoriously traditional, people who do avant-garde things like this when it comes to football are looked at askance, and it seems to me that the majority of high schools in this country either (a) don't have a need for an offense that allows them to compete with bigger, stronger, faster teams in a higher class because not everybody has the same situation as the originator in California where there weren't a lot of teams nearby in their class or (b ) don't have the personnel who could run it effectively, either physically or mentally.

You clearly must see the intent of the inventor to make this spread throughout the land and what he has to gain by it doing so?

Sure. Doesn't mean he can do it. My point is that even though he SAYS that lots of the powers that be have approved it, they haven't. And that even though he SAYS (and ESPN Magazine says) that it's spreading, we see no REAL evidence that it is. Yet there's all this hysteria about it.

You want to round up the villagers with pitchforks and torches, be my guest. But if I suggest that maybe the "nip it in the bud NOW" folks are being a touch overreactionary, I'd likely get the same response as those who said maybe one might want to tone down the rhetoric just a bit and stay on the civil side, the respectful, decent side. We all saw how the piranha came out on that one.

As another poster mentioned earlier, he could have just stayed out in his tiny little unknown piece of the woods and run this to his heart's content and nobody would have raised much fuss. He did not and his reasons for not doing so are plainly obvious.

Which doesn't mean he'd be able to do it anyway. For reasons (a) and ( b) I mention above, and with the preliminary evidence that it doesn't seem to be sweeping the country.

For me, I just want to officiate football. But I'm done talking with y'all about it. Take care.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

the same situation as the originator in California where there weren't a lot of teams nearby in their class

I don't believe this is true.

[daggo66]

ajmc,
I understand your point regarding "spirit and intent," however you are arguing for argument sake. You know darn well what the spirit of the numbering exception rule is. I think you just like to pick things apart. Officiating is not mathmatics. We don't need an equation to prove every point. I could say the spirit and intent of the roughing the passer rule is to prevent injuries to passers. Pretty hard to argue that point, but if you really wanted to, you could. Now you are arguing about the Bush doctrine which was mentioned as an analogy. You are starting to remind me of my ex-wife. She would argue and before long the argument became about the argument itself instead of the original topic. Playing devil's advocate when discussing rules is great and I think extremely beneficial, however picking nits is not.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by daggo66

ajmc,
I understand your point regarding "spirit and intent," however you are arguing for argument sake. You know darn well what the spirit of the numbering exception rule is. I think you just like to pick things apart. Officiating is not mathmatics. We don't need an equation to prove every point. I could say the spirit and intent of the roughing the passer rule is to prevent injuries to passers. Pretty hard to argue that point, but if you really wanted to, you could. Now you are arguing about the Bush doctrine which was mentioned as an analogy. You are starting to remind me of my ex-wife. She would argue and before long the argument became about the argument itself instead of the original topic. Playing devil's advocate when discussing rules is great and I think extremely beneficial, however picking nits is not.

This reminds me of an old saying about the baseball rules -- the rules are written by gentlemen for gentlemen. A finite set of rules for an infinite set of situations and it's up to the participants to play within the spirit and intent of the rules.

I do see this as an ethical problem, personally. Exploiting a loophole that's called a "scrimmage kick exception" when there's never any intent to use this exception for a scrimmage kick situation is ethically shaky, IMO. Especially considering the history of the exception and why it was put in place in the first place.

I had a coach who once, on third down, lined the quarterback up just a bit deeper in the shotgun formation and then screamed like a banshee at us when we didn't flag the defense for roughing the snapper. Same thing. The rule is there so centers don't get hurt, not to pick up 15 cheap yards and a first down.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I had a coach who once, on third down, lined the quarterback up just a bit deeper in the shotgun formation and then screamed like a banshee at us when we didn't flag the defense for roughing the snapper. Same thing. The rule is there so centers don't get hurt, not to pick up 15 cheap yards and a first down.

I've had officials argue with me (I think on this forum) that this should be flagged. I disagreed because I didn't think the snapper protection applied if they weren't obviously going to perform a scrimmage kick. If they decided to line up the QB a couple yards deeper, they were on the center was on his own. They said that wasn't supported by the rules which is true. I argued it wasn't the spirit of that rule though.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

I've had officials argue with me (I think on this forum) that this should be flagged. I disagreed because I didn't think the snapper protection applied if they weren't obviously going to perform a scrimmage kick. If they decided to line up the QB a couple yards deeper, they were on the center was on his own. They said that wasn't supported by the rules which is true. I argued it wasn't the spirit of that rule though.

The spirit of that rule is to protect the snapper while allowing the ball to be snapped a long way back accurately. I don't see where kicking has anything to do with it other than as an excuse to name the formation in the rule book. However, I do see a coach trying to pick up a cheap foul unfairly by disguising the formation.

Robert

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

This reminds me of an old saying about the baseball rules -- the rules are written by gentlemen for gentlemen. A finite set of rules for an infinite set of situations and it's up to the participants to play within the spirit and intent of the rules.

I do see this as an ethical problem, personally. Exploiting a loophole that's called a "scrimmage kick exception" when there's never any intent to use this exception for a scrimmage kick situation is ethically shaky, IMO. Especially considering the history of the exception and why it was put in place in the first place.

I had a coach who once, on third down, lined the quarterback up just a bit deeper in the shotgun formation and then screamed like a banshee at us when we didn't flag the defense for roughing the snapper. Same thing. The rule is there so centers don't get hurt, not to pick up 15 cheap yards and a first down.

I still run into coaches at the youth level who don't understand that rule and actually teach the long snapper to keep his head down in an attempt to draw a penalty. Not only do they disregard a rule to gain an advantage, they disregard the safety of their players. I've even had JV coaches line their punters up 3 to 5 yards deep in order to draw a roughing call. I always let them know that if they are going to try that then I am giving the benefit of the doubt to the defense.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

This reminds me of an old saying about the baseball rules -- the rules are written by gentlemen for gentlemen. A finite set of rules for an infinite set of situations and it's up to the participants to play within the spirit and intent of the rules.

I do see this as an ethical problem, personally. Exploiting a loophole that's called a "scrimmage kick exception" when there's never any intent to use this exception for a scrimmage kick situation is ethically shaky, IMO. Especially considering the history of the exception and why it was put in place in the first place.

I had a coach who once, on third down, lined the quarterback up just a bit deeper in the shotgun formation and then screamed like a banshee at us when we didn't flag the defense for roughing the snapper. Same thing. The rule is there so centers don't get hurt, not to pick up 15 cheap yards and a first down.

Everybody understood what the numbering exception is designed to do, even Kurt Bryan. The idea behind numbering helps officials pick out linemen and determine eligibility, helps the defense identify eligibility, even helps the offense by the passer being able to identify by number eligible receivers. It was never meant to be used for plays from scrimmage other than kicks. And, no one can argue against that.

Coaches agree numbering and the exception work. Officials live by numbering. The Rules Commitee based upon input decided the numbering exception would improve the game for "scrimmage kicks." It was never meant to be run as a new offense.

Therefore, I do not see why Coach Bryan feels this is such an important innovation to the game and so much energy is spent on trying to convince the Rules Committee of its importance. The unfortunate reality is while the numbering exception is good for the game, there are proposals to eliminate it in order to shut down the A-11.

For what it is worth, the A-11 to me is a travesty that hopefully the Rules Committee at its meeting sees through the smog and gives it a ride into the history books. It creates a situation that places an undue workload on officials and no one has identified an upside for officials.

It may sound as those my focus is on officials as well it should be but it is also on the game as there is an expectation of perfection and anything that might hinder that expectation cannot be taken politely.

Again, I hope the Rules Committee does away with the A-11.

And, nothing personal against any person and their opinion, I'm just expressing my own.

[daggo66]

Damn hyena.

[ajmc]

Escuse me daggo66, I'm not trying to nitpick anything. I didn't bring this dopey, "Spirit of the Rules" factor into this discussion, it was brought in to nitpick by those who couldn't argue the issue on it's merits.

There has been a growing frequency of some trying to add perceived intentions and all sorts of silly imagined accusations into more and more situations though, and most of it is pure BS.

All these esoteric arguments are suitable for Dr. Phil to address. Football has done pretty well for a long time without all the deep analysis.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

The unfortunate reality is while the numbering exception is good for the game, there are proposals to eliminate it in order to shut down the A-11.

Are there? To close the loophole, one need only limit the exception, not eliminate it.

I know that some have expressed qualms with language like "obvious kicking situation," but leaving this bit to officials' judgment is no dicier in principle than leaving pass interference to their judgment, IMHO.

[TXMike]

Mr Goodman -
I suspect you may have been officiating longer than I, but I have officiated nealry 1,000 total games from Pee Wee through D-III football, and I have NEVER seen a team punt on 1st or 2d down. I have only seen them attempt a FG on any down other than 4th when the game was at the end of a half.

It is obvious to me when we are in a situation where a scrimmage kick might be attempted. Does not take any great deal of brainpower to make that decision either.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by daggo66

You know darn well what the spirit of the numbering exception rule is.

We all do, but I don't see how that helps. Are you willing to have team A sacrifice eligible receivers if they use the numbering exception with shifting? Or to abolish the numbering exception? Or to abolish eligible receiver numbering? Or some other rule that's easy to administer?

It seems the "spirit" would be to have the numbering exception, and to allow team A to occasionally hide an eligible receiver by such means, but not often! How often, then? That's why "spirit" isn't going to help here.

Robert

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

We all do, but I don't see how that helps. Are you willing to have team A sacrifice eligible receivers if they use the numbering exception with shifting? Or to abolish the numbering exception? Or to abolish eligible receiver numbering? Or some other rule that's easy to administer?

It seems the "spirit" would be to have the numbering exception, and to allow team A to occasionally hide an eligible receiver by such means, but not often! How often, then? That's why "spirit" isn't going to help here.

Robert

Of course it is! However you have to look at it in the content of the time it was written. A new variable has since been added, therefore a rivision is in order. Either allow the A-11 or dis-allow it. Anyone who thinks there is a problem with the NCAA wording is just being plain ridiculous. While there is nothing preventing a team from punting on first and ten, that certainly isn't an obvious kicking situation. Late in the game, A is winning by 3 TD's, 4th and 20 from their own 20, is certainly an obvious kicking situation even though they don't have to kick. Come on now, any of you that do not know what an obvious kicking situation is doesn't belong anywhere near the game. As far as all of the situations that fall between those 2, well that's what we get paid for, making judgement calls. Once in a while someone will slip one in, just as many things getted slipped in now. However the NCAA wording will no doubt prevent it from becoming the entire offense.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by daggo66

Of course it is! However you have to look at it in the content of the time it was written. A new variable has since been added, therefore a revision is in order. Either allow the A-11 or dis-allow it.

You don't need a revision to allow it, it's already allowed.

Anyone who thinks there is a problem with the NCAA wording is just being plain ridiculous. While there is nothing preventing a team from punting on first and ten, that certainly isn't an obvious kicking situation. Late in the game, A is winning by 3 TD's, 4th and 20 from their own 20, is certainly an obvious kicking situation even though they don't have to kick. Come on now, any of you that do not know what an obvious kicking situation is doesn't belong anywhere near the game. As far as all of the situations that fall between those 2, well that's what we get paid for, making judgement calls.

Oh, that's just swell -- bring up the extremes and then just claim to be able to make the judgement in all intermediate cases. I've seen punts and place kicks on 1st down, and we know that other plays are frequently run from kick formations. So...what mental calculation of odds do you have to do to determine whether a kick is likely enough to allow the numbering exception to be used? What odds do you have to give in your head (knowing the bet will never have to be collected) on a kick?

Once in a while someone will slip one in, just as many things getted slipped in now. However the NCAA wording will no doubt prevent it from becoming the entire offense.

From the quote of David Nelson in this thread, it seems the only way the NCAA wording "works" is that there's a gentleman's agreement not to exploit it. Like the one that came about after someone discovered the loophole re batting the ball forward -- but at least that loophole was patched up before the next season.

Robert