What I Like About the A-11

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Just for the heck of it, where, or more importantly why, do you guys come up with this nonsense.

MikeL, What possibly did I write that would cause you to ask a question like, "how many holds away from the point of attack with no advantage gained have you called in your career?"? No doubt I've called more than I ever should have, just like a bunch of other mistakes I've made, but what does that have to do with anything we're talking about?

I would think the quote I attached to my question might give you the answer to that. Think it thru. Does the holding rule say anything about point of attack or advantage gained?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Mike L

Does the holding rule say anything about point of attack or advantage gained?

This is how it can get ridiculous, MikeL, drifting to expand the concept of Advantage/disadvantage to support the ridiculous attempts to find some imagined illegality with the A-11 Offense, is trying to stretch an otherwise valid point way, way beyond where it was ever intended to reach. The dots between point A and point B don't come anyway near connecting.

Excuse me Mr. Rutledge although our judgments may well be built on interpretations and opinions, those interpretations and opinions we all relate to are those made by people who have been recognized and are empowered to make them, rather than individual whim and personal conclusion.

Although total consistency is as elusive as perfection, you might consider the advice of Mr. Lombardi applicable, "Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence." (V.Lombardi)

Trying to justify ANYTHING to the manner in which the foul of "Hurdling" is, and has long been, assessed and determined is a fool's quest, I'm not going to touch with a 10 foot pole.

Daggo66, sorry if you were offended, but the assessment you made, about your State Interpretation meeting, was simply ridiculous and didn't make any sense.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by ajmc

This is how it can get ridiculous, MikeL, drifting to expand the concept of Advantage/disadvantage to support the ridiculous attempts to find some imagined illegality with the A-11 Offense, is trying to stretch an otherwise valid point way, way beyond where it was ever intended to reach. The dots between point A and point B don't come anyway near connecting.

Excuse me Mr. Rutledge although our judgments may well be built on interpretations and opinions, those interpretations and opinions we all relate to are those made by people who have been recognized and are empowered to make them, rather than individual whim and personal conclusion.

Although total consistency is as elusive as perfection, you might consider the advice of Mr. Lombardi applicable, "Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence." (V.Lombardi)

Trying to justify ANYTHING to the manner in which the foul of "Hurdling" is, and has long been, assessed and determined is a fool's quest, I'm not going to touch with a 10 foot pole.

Daggo66, sorry if you were offended, but the assessment you made, about your State Interpretation meeting, was simply ridiculous and didn't make any sense.

I'm just operating off of YOUR statements. If they are ridiculous, well that's not really my fault, now is it? You make blanket statements in attempts to support your position and then it gets pointed out how those blanket statements do not apply to much of anything we actually do on a field. And yet it's me that's causing the problem?

[DadofTwins]

I'm a soccer guy, so pardon my ignorance if this seems like a stupid question:

I'm watching the "Official Review" segment of NFL Total Access. One of the plays being discussed involved a gunner on a fake punt being clobbered right before the pass arrives. The head of NFL officials said that by rule, "there is no defensive pass interference in punt formation." The rationale, as he explained it, is that the gunners usually get blocked anyway, and they didn't want punters picking up cheap first downs by waiting for their gunner to get blocked and throwing the ball at him.

Time for my soccer guy ignorance to show:

Is this rule also part of high school ball? If not, might it be the solution to the A-11 controversy? Keep the numbering exception, tell the coaches to go ahead and run the offense if you want to, but treat eligible receivers like punt gunners for pass interference purposes.

[ajmc]

A reasonable question. There are numerous, and often significant differences, between NFL, NCAA and NFHS football rule codes. The situation you cite is one of the significant differences.

There are a separate, and somewhat unique sub-set of rules that apply only to the kicking game in the NFHS code, but they are all dependent, and only come into play, when the ball has actually been kicked (different from the NFL version).

Under the NFHS code, regardless of fakes, trickery or (legal) attempts to conceal the action, throwing a legal forward pass, under the NFHS code, is considered a pass play and is subject to different sub-set of rules specifically related to pass plays, any legal pass play.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Excuse me Mr. Rutledge although our judgments may well be built on interpretations and opinions, those interpretations and opinions we all relate to are those made by people who have been recognized and are empowered to make them, rather than individual whim and personal conclusion.

You are missing the point (as usual). Officials working games are on an island. They do not have to accept what is widely accepted and enforce rules they way they see fit in their games. But just like everything, people have the right to judge their performance and judge if they are applying the rules properly as the spirit and intent calls for or if they need to be ultra technical on a particular application. And it is in many cases our opinions about that interpretation that can get us in trouble or make us part of the larger group. Holding is one of those rules that has no rulebook or official interpretation of point of attack, but is widely called that way by advanced officials across the country. And if you were to talk to younger officials, it takes them sometime to understand that "interpretation" and apply it on the field the way it is expected. And as it relates to the A-11, my state told us to make the teams running it perfect and not to give teams a pass when they are lining up, because the offense is using rules to undermine the original intent. And the way that I applied the rules (and the crew) was based on our opinions of what we were told to do.

Originally Posted by ajmc

Although total consistency is as elusive as perfection, you might consider the advice of Mr. Lombardi applicable, "Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence." (V.Lombardi)

Trying to justify ANYTHING to the manner in which the foul of "Hurdling" is, and has long been, assessed and determined is a fool's quest, I'm not going to touch with a 10 foot pole.

I have no idea what the Lombardi quote has to do with this discussion, but for some reason it means something to you.

Peace

[ajmc]

Far be it from me to get back to reality, but as I've tried, apparently unsuccessfully, to get across to you from the very beginning, is that I have agreed that the best way to deal with this offense is to hold it tightly to the rules regarding formation requirements, shifts and motion.

What appears to have started this, seemingly endless exchange, was my suggestion that your divergence to using personal attacks and unfounded accusations against the proponents of this offence, rather than sticking to the football rule related components, detracted from your argument and was generating a negative perception. A simple suggestion, but you chose instead to rise up in indignation in response and start blasting away with all sorts of additional accusations and defensive arguments that are totally ancillary to the subject.

It wasn't a big deal, you just momentarily stepped over the line (of good taste) and the simple solution would have been to evaluate your comments, and hopefully realize you should step back without any comment or explanation being necessary. You elected, however, to take the discussion down a "who are you to tell me anything" road, which not surprisingly leads usually to nowhere. We took a long detour through the "Spirit of the Rule" discussion which, although a valid and important comcept in general, as it applied to this discussion turned out to be pure smoke.

If you're trying to suggest we all have the right to jump off a bridge, I'd agree that we, "do not have to accept what is widely accepted and enforce rules they way they see fit in their games", but that's terrible advice because we all do have to justify our decisions and are held accountable to following generally acceptable interpretations and policies, whether we agree with them completely, or not.

What you describe as your State's advice on how to deal with this offense, is exactly what I have recommended from the very beginning. It is the weight of consistent compliance and precise execution with the requirements of the formational, shift and motion rules that I believe renders this offense unreliable.

My reference to perfection and consistency was a response to your mentioning the overt lack of consistency in application of the "hurdling" rule. I was simply suggesting that even though the pursuit of consistency, like perfection, is never attainable, the effort of that pursuit often generates a higher level of excellence.

Despite all the detours this topic has taken, and all that are still available, the main path remains unchanged, the A-11 offense, as distasteful and threatening as some may hold it, does not violate the current rule. Whether the arguments against it are sufficient to motivate the rule makers to ammend the rules to prevent this application, remains to be seen. That answer should be coming in the relatively near future.

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by ajmc

the A-11 offense, as distasteful and threatening as some may hold it, does not violate the current rule. Whether the arguments against it are sufficient to motivate the rule makers to ammend the rules to prevent this application, remains to be seen. That answer should be coming in the relatively near future.

That's exactly the point everyone has been making. You just seem to use 50 words when 5 will do. How long does your coach's pre-game last?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Far be it from me to get back to reality, but as I've tried, apparently unsuccessfully, to get across to you from the very beginning, is that I have agreed that the best way to deal with this offense is to hold it tightly to the rules regarding formation requirements, shifts and motion.

What appears to have started this, seemingly endless exchange, was my suggestion that your divergence to using personal attacks and unfounded accusations against the proponents of this offence, rather than sticking to the football rule related components, detracted from your argument and was generating a negative perception. A simple suggestion, but you chose instead to rise up in indignation in response and start blasting away with all sorts of additional accusations and defensive arguments that are totally ancillary to the subject.

It wasn't a big deal, you just momentarily stepped over the line (of good taste) and the simple solution would have been to evaluate your comments, and hopefully realize you should step back without any comment or explanation being necessary. You elected, however, to take the discussion down a "who are you to tell me anything" road, which not surprisingly leads usually to nowhere. We took a long detour through the "Spirit of the Rule" discussion which, although a valid and important comcept in general, as it applied to this discussion turned out to be pure smoke.

If you're trying to suggest we all have the right to jump off a bridge, I'd agree that we, "do not have to accept what is widely accepted and enforce rules they way they see fit in their games", but that's terrible advice because we all do have to justify our decisions and are held accountable to following generally acceptable interpretations and policies, whether we agree with them completely, or not.

What you describe as your State's advice on how to deal with this offense, is exactly what I have recommended from the very beginning. It is the weight of consistent compliance and precise execution with the requirements of the formational, shift and motion rules that I believe renders this offense unreliable.

My reference to perfection and consistency was a response to your mentioning the overt lack of consistency in application of the "hurdling" rule. I was simply suggesting that even though the pursuit of consistency, like perfection, is never attainable, the effort of that pursuit often generates a higher level of excellence.

Despite all the detours this topic has taken, and all that are still available, the main path remains unchanged, the A-11 offense, as distasteful and threatening as some may hold it, does not violate the current rule. Whether the arguments against it are sufficient to motivate the rule makers to ammend the rules to prevent this application, remains to be seen. That answer should be coming in the relatively near future.

There's an old baseball umpire adage -- you should be able to explain anything in 5 words or less. In your case, try 100 words or less.

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Daggo66, sorry if you were offended, but the assessment you made, about your State Interpretation meeting, was simply ridiculous and didn't make any sense.

Of course it doesn't make sense. It was a sarcastic remark in response to an idiotic statement. It doesn't matter whether or not you are sorry. You cannot stand behind a pretense of being above others during a discussion and then act the very same way. You are nothing but a phony.
You simply love to argue to the degree that you will argue absolutely any detail even if it is superfluous to the discussion at hand.