What I Like About the A-11

[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

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I've seen punts and place kicks on 1st down, and we know that other plays are frequently run from kick formations.

Under what circumstances have you seen a team punt on first down?

[asdf]

In the day of the internet.....

.... you certainly would have heard about a team punting on 1st or 2nd down.

.... you certainly would have heard about a team fake punting on 1st or 2nd
down.

.... you certainly would have heard about a team attempting a field goal of 75 on first down. (even at the end of a half)

The list is endless and I have never heard of such an instance. (would have probably been followed by the firing of the HC)

It's easy, based on the most people's knowledged of the game itself, to determine whether or not you are in a scrimmage kick situation.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by waltjp

Under what circumstances have you seen a team punt on first down?

Close to their own goal line, and once with an even numbered period about to end with a big wind change.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Close to their own goal line, and once with an even numbered period about to end with a big wind change.

By "even" I'm guessing that you meant "odd."

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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?


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

Other plays are frequently run from kick formations? Huh? Maybe things are different here in MD. I'm lucky if I see 2 or 3 fake kicks a season, even then I have a suspicion when they are about to happen. Maybe I'm being thick, but what other play would be run from a scrimmage kick formation? There's no calculation involved. If you have any feel whatsoever for the game of game you know what the possibilities are in any given situation.

As far as the NCAA wording, I don't work any games with those rules, however I defer to TXMike who does. He feels it's not a problem. From what I've read here over the past few years I trust his judgement.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by daggo66

Other plays are frequently run from kick formations? Huh? Maybe things are different here in MD. I'm lucky if I see 2 or 3 fake kicks a season, even then I have a suspicion when they are about to happen. Maybe I'm being thick, but what other play would be run from a scrimmage kick formation?

Maybe I'm being thick now, but...running plays & pass plays. What other choices are there?

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Maybe I'm being thick now, but...running plays & pass plays. What other choices are there?

I agree with your assessment. It's 4th down and the punt team comes on the field. You basically have 3 things which can occur. They will punt. They will fake the punt. They will totally mess things up with a bad snap or a blocked punt or something of that nature. Now the fake can certainly be a run or a pass, but in any event it's pretty obvious that they are going to punt. Other factors, such as time and game situation will clue you in to the possibility of the fake. (another hint is when the other team starts yelling "watch the fake.")

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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?

It isn't complicated at all. I have never seen a team use the A-11 except for some video clips. In ever game I have ever seen in my entire life when A lines up in a scrimmage kick formation it has been obvious to me that a kick will likely be attempted. Of course they may run a fake play but I have never once thought to myself "why is this team in a SKF?"

The wording works fine in NCAA. Stop pretending that you are that dumb that you can't figure out if a team is likely to attempt a kick. A has the ball 1st & 10 on the 50 yard line and they come out in the A-11....does anyone actually think the team is going to punt? Of course not.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by LDUB

It isn't complicated at all. I have never seen a team use the A-11 except for some video clips. In ever game I have ever seen in my entire life when A lines up in a scrimmage kick formation it has been obvious to me that a kick will likely be attempted. Of course they may run a fake play but I have never once thought to myself "why is this team in a SKF?"

Isn't that circular? The legality of A-11 would be based on how common it was, because you're basing your judgement on the frequency that teams use scrimmage kick formation for various plays?

The wording works fine in NCAA. Stop pretending that you are that dumb that you can't figure out if a team is likely to attempt a kick. A has the ball 1st & 10 on the 50 yard line and they come out in the A-11....does anyone actually think the team is going to punt? Of course not.

But NCAA didn't even use the word "likely", only "may be"!

Would you tolerate a rule regarding pass interference by B based on the likelihood of its being a pass play? After all, players of B don't know whether an opponent going downfield is a potential receiver if they don't know if it's a pass play. So you could formulate the rule based on official's judgement of whether a pass is likely. But I bet you wouldn't.

Here and in the other thread I've suggested several clear-cut alternatives to your judgement call on A-11, but it seems posters here would rather curse the darkness.

Robert

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Isn't that circular? The legality of A-11 would be based on how common it was, because you're basing your judgement on the frequency that teams use scrimmage kick formation for various plays?

It is based on how often teams make scrimmage kicks. That is what you don't get.

All you have to do when a team is in a SKF is as yourself if you think they are going to kick. 2nd & 2 in the middle of the field is not a kicking situation, it is obvious to everyone. 4th & 2 in the middle of the field is a kicking situation, it is obvious to everyone.

[daggo66]

On the defensive side of the ball it can be difficult to tell who is on and who is off the line. In the A-11 they step up at the last moment. The primary responsibilty for ineligibles downfield is the umpire who normally just has to look for numbers. With the A-11 you could have someone outside his vision with a normally ineligible number who is now eligible. Other officials now have to help out with that responsibility. Not impossible to work with, just more difficult. Normally the U could flag #50 for being downfield and no one would question it. With the A-11, you might have to confer with the wings first if there is doubt. In youth ball I usually ask #50 which position he was on the last play and they always tell the truth. It's youth ball and no one complains. Certainly not a mechanic I would employ at the high school level.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by msavakinas

I have a question... I do not do football anymore, and only did it for 3 years. In the NCAA and NFL aren't there rules that say a player cannot be an elgible receiver if he is "covered" up by someone who is closer to the sideline? Do these restrictions apply in a punting formation or not?

Yes, only backs and ends can be eligible receivers.

Originally Posted by msavakinas

If so, then it would seem to me like in the NCAA and NFL it would not be difficult to point out who the elgible receivers would be because they would not be "covered" up by someone outside of them. I know this might be a little difficult to officiate because of the large "splits" between the people on the line but it would still be easy to point out those who are not on the LOS and those who are. And the one who is on either end could still be elgible. But this restriction might not apply or I might have it wrong... please let me know.

It can be hard if the 6 linemen other than the snapper do not shift onto the line until right before the snap.