What I Like About the A-11

[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.

[daggo66]

We don't officiate black and white. If we did the game of football wouldn't exist as we know it. Advantage/disadvantage is usually a strong consideration. Understanding not only the rule, but the intent of the rule is paramount when making the decision of whether or not to apply it. Every year our RI talks about not calling small infractions that are away from the play. How can you possibly decide whether or not to call holding when you don't consider the intent of the rule?

[ajmc]

If you were responding to my comment daggo66, I was not referring to advantage/disadvantage or considering the basic intent of a rule. I was referring to those who seem to want to imply some imagined sinister motivation to a foul, to support applying a harsher penalty.

Sometimes judging intent is a necessary part of applying a penalty, but that only goes so far and applies to a limited number of situations like Intentional grounding and some USC situations. Sometimes players, especially at the HS level, just make mistakes or don't execute as well as they are expected. If their mistake calls for a penalty, fine, but there's no need to look for a conspiracy or premeditation to justify applying a harsher penalty. When something happens that calls for a player ejection, it should be crystal clear and apparent where no doubt exists.

[Mike L]

I'm sorry, your time is up. If you wish to continue arguing you must pay.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Mike L

I'm sorry, your time is up. If you wish to continue arguing you must pay.

M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: I told you once.
M: No you haven't.
A: Yes I have.
M: When?
A: Just now.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't
A: I did!
M: You didn't!
A: I'm telling you I did!
M: You did not!!
A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
M: Oh, just the five minutes.
A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not.
A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
M: No you did not.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't.
A: Did.
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by ajmc

If you were responding to my comment daggo66, I was not referring to advantage/disadvantage or considering the basic intent of a rule.

This is where your disconnect is. The "spirit" of the rule is synonymous with the "intent" of the rule. That is why you see it written as spirit AND intent. Coaches very often get confused reading a rule because they apply basic english or worse yet coach-speak to what they are reading. I always tell them they have to read the definitions first, therefore they can understand the spirit and intent of the rule even if what they read appears to mean something else. In this usage "intent" refers to what the rule makers intended. This has nothing to do with the player's "intent" of his actions which you went on to further explain in your post.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by 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.

I know this is going to be hard for you to understand or believe, the entire reason this rule is being considered as a change, is the fact that the rule had a very specific intent or spirit involved. You cannot bring the conversation up without talking about that part of it. That is not something you nitpick when the NF asked people in the survey about this very topic. I know you are late to the conversation that we have had for about 2 years already, but please. The more you say things the more you show you do not even know the basics of this conversation.

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

Dude, we get it, you like the offense. That is not the point and never was.

And if the NF changes the rule to the other levels, what are you going to say then?

Peace

[asdf]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And if the NF changes the rule to the other levels, what are you going to say then?

I'll be that there is a warning to the FED that doing so just may subject them to a restraint of trade lawsuit.

[Welpe]

Oh goodie...we haven't had an A-11 thread in quite a while now.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Oh goodie...we haven't had an A-11 thread in quite a while now.

I've got my calendar set for June to remind me to start an A-11 thread. It'll be like the annual Baseball thread in the basketball forum.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by 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.

Dopey? Ethics is dopey? The reason why a rule is put in place is dopey? Playing within the spirit and intent of the rules is dopey?

With all due respect, sir, it's clear to me what (actually, who) is dopey.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Dopey? Ethics is dopey? The reason why a rule is put in place is dopey? Playing within the spirit and intent of the rules is dopey?

With all due respect, sir, it's clear to me what (actually, who) is dopey.

Take a pill RichMSN, before you blow a gasket. On the subject of "nit-picking" I guess if you want to twist everything to suit your purpose, that's your privlege. I'm not suggesting ethics is "dopey".

What I am suggesting is that fanatics (hyenas was a great discription) opposed to this modified formation, who have been unable to justify it being illegal according to the existing rules, grasping for some other reason to demonize the concept, latched on to the "Spirit of the Rules" approach in a bogus attempt to further their argument.

Changing their approach from a discussion focusing on actual compliance with existing rule(s) to one of assinine personal attacks and trying to invoke vague interpretations of broad concepts to fit their particular opinions is what I consider "dopey". DopeyEST, because the shift wasn't necessary, the argument related to actual compliance was, and is, much stronger than this drift into an esoteric attempt to cloud the issue.

I have no problem, whatsoever, with the validity and value of applying either the "Spirit of the Rules" or "Intent of the Rules" considerations to each and every judgment we make. My problem is when either term is twisted and slanted to specifically prop up some argument that is clearly NOT SUPPORTED by the actual letter of the rule in question.
You can stamp your feet, hold your breath and run around the room all day long, and the rules as currently written are still not being violated by the concept of the A-11 Offense, if properly and exactly executed.

There in, however, lies the problem. The "Achilles heel" of this offense requires absolutely precise execution simultaneously by multiple players complying with exiting rules related to formation, motion and shifting that render it, at a minimum, extremely difficult to properly execute consistently, especially at the H.S. level.

If you want to attack this offense from a "Spirit" or "Intent" of the rules perspective, I suggest insisting on rigid enforcement of those rules a far better, more defined and supportable approach.

The more important, more basic issue is simply, as officials we dont get to decide WHAT WE THINK the rules makers meant, we are limited to enforcing what they WRITE. If we ever cross the line where, individually we, as officials, get to decide what rules "really" mean, the result will be absolute chaos.

This is a question that the rules makers need to decide, and what other codes covering other levels may decide, has no bearing on what is determined to best for the NFHS code. Correcting misunderstanding on the sideline or the stands, although at times we have the opportunity to assist in correcting the problem, is NOT our responsibility.

[daggo66]

If you filter out all the rhetoric, that's what the majority of us have been saying all along.