What I Like About the A-11

[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.

[Robert Goodman]

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?

In NFL you can't have an ineligible number in an eligible position or vice versa unless they report so; the umpire relays that info to the other team.

In NCAA, as long as you have 5 ineligible numbers on the line it's OK. If one of them's at an end or back or T-quarterback position, the team is just sacrificing an eligible receiver. This is not uncommon when teams line up in or shift into an unbalanced line as a surprise; they may do so by shifting an end off one side and a back onto the line on the other, which does result in the erstwhile end's becoming ineligible to receive a forward pass; the defense is likely not to recognize that situation and cover that player anyway, although that player is not allowed to take advantage by going downfield as a decoy for another receiver.

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.

Heck, they played with the forward pass for long enough without any eligible receiver numbering, so it's not insuperable. Tackle eligible plays were fair game, but it's not as if they were any guarantee of success, any more than any other type of deception in the game.

Robert