What I Like About the A-11
 

Nothing.

In all the threads extolling the virtues of the A-11 and also denigrating it nowhere could I find a critique. So, I did my own.

1) The workload of the umpire is difficult as he must identify the interior linemen who will only be ineligible by position. This would cause ineligible downfield calls to be difficult.

2) Back judge unable to completely view the offensive line would not be able to properly determine if an interior lineman has ventured downfield.

3) The rules as they exist enable officials and defenders to easily identify ineligibility for passing and illegal touching. Imagine, a pass thrown to #88 who was a guard. The opposing coach then complains #88 was ineligible.

There are probably more.

No doubt, the A-11 will be hosed by the Committee, however, hope it does not kill the numbering exception for scrimmage kicks. With the uniform rules it will require some planning to get your long snapper into the game if he happens to be say a tight end.

A-11...R.I.P.

What if the Federation just gave the numbering exception for the center? That is the only position that really needs a numbering exception.

No, that doesn't work. Maybe not so much at the high school level, but for sure at the college level the 315 pound guy who wears #74 and plays offensive tackle is going to leave the game in a punt situation. He is not the guy the team wants running downfield and tackling the runner. The offense is going to bring in a punt team and they may or may not be wearing eligible numbers.

[sarcasm]Be very careful, you do not want to be accused of unprofessional personal attacks, when you give your opinion. That is completely out of bounds and you should be ashamed of yourself. [/sarcasm] :D

Peace

Like someone else said, this would be impractical because most teams put linebackers or tight ends on the line on punt teams because they're big enough and fast enough to cover the punts. The gunners at the end are usually defensive backs. The blocking backs are sometimes linebackers or fullbacks, although I did see someone using a smaller offensive guard back there in a bowl game. If you only have the number restriction for the center, then you as an official had better be ready to cover the punt returns that will be going back for touchdowns.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

That is exactly what the numbering exception is about. It enables the kickers to place big but fast players on the O-line to cover the return. It is a real balance because R is going to use players who can get downfield quick and block.

Simply removing the numbering exception for the center places K at a disadvantage.

Something worth remembering, as we continue to hash out this problem, is that there are really big differences between those who play HS football, those who go on to play college football and those few, who make it on into the NFL.

Trying to tailor the wording of any rule, so it fits all 3 categories is a difficult, if not impossible, challenge. We currently have separate rules codes, that are basically similar, but contain a lot of specific differences that take into consideration the differences in physical attributes, maturity and the experience factors of each level regarding both players and coaches.

One size rarely, if ever, fits all, and what might work fine for a goose just doesn't cut it with ganders. It's not just a question of which phrasing works better, because each phrasing is (or at least is intended to be) related to it's specific audience.

http://nogoodforme.filmstills.org/im...igeltufnel.jpg

"Here's what I like about the A-11: it goes to eleven."

I see the point on the disadvantage to K on just limiting the numbering exception to the center.

First, the A-11 is not a problem for the rules, simply removing the numbeing exception removes the "problem." Consider, not the rules makers consider not only the players but if the officials can officiate the rule. While the NFL and NCAA have seven officials, there are a few NFHS varsity games with four officials. They have a difficult workload without the A-11.

Again, the NFHS code places a premium on safety especially considering the participants are younger than the average NCAA player. Also, the code considers many high school officials are not equipped as NCAA officials. For years the NFHS has tried to stay away from exceptions to the rules, in other words, using the basic code which ALL the codes subscribe.

We saw NFHS implement the post scrimmage kick enforcement and it took three years to get it right. The numbering exception has been around for decades and sufficed until the intent was circumvented.

Now, the Rules Committee is attempting to tighten the rule to the original intent which would place it in line with the NCAA and NFL codes and not some divergent direction.

From the proposals placed before the Committee the A-11 as advertised will be eliminated. The basic code has linemen numbers (50-79) on the interior O-line and that basic tenet of the game will not be compromised.

Simply removing the numbering exception may be akin to "throwing the baby out with the bath water." Presuming (considering no argument to the contrary) the numbering exception has been working well, is widely accepted and has not caused any major problems, why toss it?

I don't think there's any disagreement that this A-11 offense uses the language of the rule to create a situation the rule makers likely never envisioned. Loopholes are a natural and consistent by product of any rule and are created simply because the language used in creating the rule never allows for the unanticipated.

The key to effective rule making is not to create an intended cure that is worse than the problem it was intended to correct.

The issue of "The Spirit of the Rule" is like smoke, it is totally dependent on the opinion of whomever is claiming it and provides for unlimited posturing. I suspect the rules makers are thoroughly evaluating this situation and are carefully considering language that may not only close an existing loophole, but avoid different loopholes from forming.


I wouldn't presume the NFHS's main consideration is placing any revision, "in line with the NCAA and NFL codes, as much as it is in dealing with this issue as it relates to the game of football played at the High School level. The presumption that the game is better at the collegiate level and better yet at the professional level in nonsense. The talent and skill levels are better at each level, but the game itself is different and specifically tailored to suit each level it's played at.

Sometimes rules that make perfect sense for young men between 19-25 years old, or grown men between 24-40 years old just don't work as well for students between 13-18 years old, which is why we have different rules codes.

What ????? Are you saying you do not know what the spirit and intent of the numbering rule and exception are or that you just choose not to believe what others who have researched it are telling you that it is. The spirit and intent of this rule is clear and is documented as I have shown before.

But I digress...all you guys need to do in Fed is mimic the NCAA rule on this. While not all NCAA rules are written better than Fed rules, on this one it is. Team A (or K as you call it) needs to have the right to put cover guys in and we do not want to go through some convoluted jersey changing process to let them do that. Heck even the NCAA rule would let this A11 BS go on on one down and I am not arguing to remove that.

Agreed. I hope this is where FED goes.

You make an excellent point as the A-11 is exactly that smoke and the Rules Committee will be the smokeater.

What I would love to see or hear is some concrete reason why the A-11 should be allowed as all the smoke has been filled with broad platitudes about how it would be better, how it is safer, and the point 13-18 year olds should have different rules than older players which I cannot totally disagree. But, how all that justifies the A-11 puzzles me.

For example, the A-11 is actually practiced in many youth football programs as they don't conform to the numbering rules for various reasons. Of course, they don't pass much. They don't usually kick that much. And, my pet peeve, they don't usually have "real" coaches.

Just give me a point why the A-11 is good for us officials?

I like the cut of your jib, sir.

Not sure of your intent here... but

Don't you mean, "what is good for the game?" It certainly isn't about us.

If it is not good for us, it is not good for the game. These things are not mutually exclusive.

Peace

Well, that may be a bit of a blanket statement, Jeff.

Many times we joke about how we would prefer that teams never pass or kick the ball because that would make our lives easier. Of course, we are joking (largely) because the difficulty of this avocation is one thing that attracts many of us. If it was easy, everybody would do it. It's not. Some like the challenge.

Now, there's "good for us" and "easy for us." Sure, you'd like things to not be overly or unnecessarily complicated for us, but something can be good for the game and yet be difficult for us to officiate. That's part of the cross we bear when we choose to do this.

I'd say "You know what? Maybe I'm not cut out for this, I can't do X, Y or Z" before I'd say, "I wish they'd change the rules to make my life easier."

But that's just me.

My point and Rut confirmed it, in the opening to this post there are a number of cons mentioned that my belief increases officials' workload and efficiency. I've heard all the points about the A-11 but not one about how officials could handle it or be proficient officiating it.

If officials cannot officiate it, then, the game itself suffers. Case in point, for years ineligible downfield was five yards and loss of down. The Rules Committe felt officials were not calling it because of the severity of the penalty, therefore, dropped the loss of down provision.

We are an integral part of the game. If we cannot or will not enforce a rule it is useless.

Ed, sorry but i don't think the objective should be whether something, "is good for us officials". What matters is whether something is "good for the game".

Prior to the current numbering restrictions being in place, the standard crew size was 4 (sometimes only 3) officials, and somehow the games were managed to be played anyway. Granted, the game was not nearly as wide open or pass involved, but the principles were exactly the same as they are today. Players on each end of the line and those in the offensive backfield were eligible to receive a forward pass.

Establishing the numbering requirements we have today certainly made monitoring eligibility a lot easier. I try not to guess what the rules makers might, or might not do, but I suspect you'd have to have a list of things to contemplate going into the triple digits before fining a suggestion to scrap the current numbering designations.

TXMike, what I'm saying is defining "The Spirit of the Rule" is like defining "The Bush Doctrine", everybody thinks they know what it is, but can NEVER actually put their finger on it because it's NEVER been spelled out. It turns out to be everybody's own perception of what they think it should be. You haven't documented anything but your opinion and the opinions of other like minded people, which may certainly be reasonable, but is still just an opinion.

I'm wondering what you thought I meant by my statement.

We are not talking about passing or not passing. We are talking about a rule that may or may not be more difficult to officiate for all levels and all circumstances. Do not take a statement in one context and start adding it to another situation.

The point is the term is not mutually exclusive, because if officials have a problem enforcing a rule, then the game is going to suffer. And since officials enforce rules of the game, we better be able to consistently understand and handle rules that we must deal with. They do not change rules language for just the benefit of the "game." They do this so the officials can understand the intent or apply the rules much more consistently.

Peace

Well....to save KB the effort, and since we all know them so well...
1 - There will be fewer injuries if everyone uses the A11 (and we as officials want fewer injuries, right)
2 - The game is moving to a more wide open and spread offense and this is just the "ogical" extension (and we as officials do not want to stand in the way of "progress" do we)
3 - This offense gives "disadvantaged" teams a "more level playing field" (and we as officials are looking for a "fairer" game aren't we?)

The word "smoke" which has now made its way into this thread should be more appropriately used as part of the phrase "smoke and mirrors" which is what this is A-11 all about.

Back on point. I listed three things that hamper the efficiency of officials with the A-11. I asked if anyone knew of pros for officials with the A-11. In all the bits and bytes used up on this forum about the A-11 there has not been one scrap of information on how officials are impacted good ro bad by the A-11.

If the A-11 makes the job of officiating more difficult that is a problem. If there is a point I missed that makes it easier for officials I am waiting to hear it.

Don't compare the Bush Doctrine with the work of the Rules Committee!

One of the things they do when a rule is implemented is document in the rule book the reasoning behind the rule change. This is helpful for those officials who read it because you can understand the "spirit and intent" of the rule and act accordingly.

And it is kind of hard to say the opinions expressed here are just opinions when several the authorities in several states have not just expressed their opinion but acted to declare the A-11 the travesty it is. Therefore, you may choose to lambast the majority here for our opinions but it an opinion of the majority.

However, we would welcome your opinion.

The Bush Doctrine was spelled out by the administration and shared to the press. When people do not know what it is, that is because they have not read the public record on the topic.

The same goes for rules. Rules have often been spelled out and the reasoning behind those rules has also been made clear. There is a reason there is a Handbook and a reason the casebook exists. And the intent of the scrimmage kick formation is clear just in the way the exception is read. It is rather clear that no one expects this exception (or you would not call it an exception for scrimmage kick formations) to be used on every down and every situation. If this was intended, why have rules that require very specific numbering without the formation and say who can and who cannot go downfield on passes?

You were not insulted by my comments where you?

Peace

You want a simple rule satisfying most of your desiderata? Very well:

Move the requirement of shirts numbered 50-79 out of the requirement for A's scrimmage formation and into the forward pass rules. You can have any unique numbering 1-99 you want on any down, but a forward pass is illegal if thrown during a down where you snapped without 5 players numbered 50-79 on A's line.

Such a regime would be similar to what existed in Canadian football until IIRC 1968, when you could snap with as few as 5 on A's line, but on a pass play you had to have at least 7.

Robert

I understood your intent, Jeff. You missed mine, apparently. I was just saying that it's not necessarily what's easiest for us that's best for the game.

I would say if the officials have a problem enforcing the rule, then the game may suffer, but it's not necessarily because of the rule. It may be that we as officials have to step it up and get 'er done and not say "It's just too hard for us. Make it easier."

That was my point. We had 100+ years of football before PSK, which, to my knowledge, makes things harder for us. But it's not going away, so it's incumbent upon us to figure it out.

It may very well be that a rule or a procedure is unworkable. That is bad for the game. But it shouldn't necessarily be judged on how "difficult" it is for us as officials. Our jobs are, by their very nature, difficult.

How difficult you want them to get is a matter of degrees.

We do not make policy, gentlemen. We are the instruments of that policy.

4. Jeff Fisher loves it and is going to incorporate it into the Titan system.

Once again, JRutledge, you are way out beyond the reach of your headlights. There is no such thing as the "Bush doctrine" other than the opinions and interpretations made by many public officials, journalists and pundits choosing to aggregate separate, individual and not always connected observations made by a mixture of people, under an arbitrary title created by a slanted media.

If you can refer me to an official document (similar to a written rule) that incorporates the "Bush Doctrine", I will be in your debt. As Gov. Palin learned, responding to a mythical target, that is defined by whomever chooses to define it, without understanding exactly what their unique version of defininition is, can be problematic.

Your assessment, of what I presume you meant to define the "Spirit of the Rules", is simply inadequate. No doubt the Official's Handbook, Case Book and other official publications are designed to further explain the logic behind rules and assist an official in understanding and correctly applying their judgment and ruling. Any rule/exception is always designed to address a particular situation(s), but as we have seem continually over the years, rarely is any rule able to cover all possibilities, present and future.

Continually basing your position on repeating the question "why" is a strategy best reserved for toddlers, who usually reach, and end, at a point of just being annoying. I certainly can't guarantee, but am reasonably confident, the issue of the A-11 Offense as related to the numbering exception, was not in the least bit a consideration during the actual creation of the exception. You can beat your breast, and line up all the like thinkers you can, but the idea of the A-11 offense exploiting the numbering exception will most likely remain an unintended consequence.

In and of itself, that is not a big problem, because all the rule makers have to do is contemplate the loophole that's now been discovered and decide whether it should be allowed to continue, or take steps to revise the language and close it. Really no big deal, but until they do something, it remains a loophole.

As for your comments, why should I be insulted? Some of your input has been informative and relevant, some has been just silly and stubborn, some has been needlessly and excessively negative but that reflects badly on you rather than the targets and some has flown way over my head.

Ed Hickland: I realize there is a history documented when establishing a rule to document what the intention was, at the time of creation and understand that is a valuable tool in understanding how to comply with that particular rule. I certainly could be wrong, but I suspect that the concept of a possible A-11 Offense application NEVER occurred to that decision process and is simply something that subsequently fell outside the discussion. What we now are confronted with as an unintended consequence.

I'm not intending to lambaste anyone, other than those who have needlessly lowered the tone of this discussion with personal attacks and regretable presumptions. Neither am I overly impressed with any opinion when it's viability is based solely on numbers, rather than context.

Like some others, you seem to presume that since I don't share all your extreme conclusions, I must therefore support this approach. For the umpteenth time, I do not. Actually I agree with many of the arguments suggested against this concept, and have repeatedly stated I do not think this formation is viable, under it's own weight.

Many of the tangents that have been advanced, seem just like unnecessary baggage and paths that lead nowhere. The issue is in the hands of the rule makers, where it has actually always resided, and they will guide our response, sooner or later, in one direction or the other. Likely whichever decision they make, will produce some level of opposition, and as is usually the case, that won't make much difference other than provide noise.

Actually there was, but I am not going to debate politics with you when you cannot understand basic concepts with rules of the game of football. ;)

It is inadequete to you, because you do not understand how rules are made or how they are talked about. You just started right?

I am not sure how I am stubborn, I am on the majority side of this issue. You on the other hand have tried to preach to people what they should think. I do not care what you think or what conclusions you understand. The reality is in less than a month this issue will be resolved for at least one year. If you do not understand the spirit and intent of rules, you must not do a lot of reading of things that come from the NF or their publications they produce. It is often that many rules are expressed. Just because you do not understand them, does not mean they are there. And usually those things are known better when you have doing this for some time.

I used to say a long time ago, but what I say here must be working, because I got my games. And when I say thing here I might not always be right, but people listen (which is the only goal I care about as it relates to any internet board in the first place). You are the person having a tough time gaining respect by the other people here.

BTW, the comments about you being insulted, was a joke and a way to mock your overly sensitive attitude about a discussion we are having. I am talking the exact same way I did to you as in the other thread and you should be insulted. Considering you have not shown any evidence how I said anything to you other than facts, has really undermined your credibility with me and others on this site. Now that is not my problem that is one you will have to deal with. Personally I have better things to worry about. ;)

Peace

My point was that these things were not mutually exclusive. And I would disagree with you that we are only instruments, when we are asked all the time and used as the barometer for how and why rules are implemented. ;)

Peace

You are correct.

Let me set the record straight. I started this thread because I have heard the "ads" for the A-11 and been totally unimpressed but did take time to evaluate the effect on officiating the game.

Therefore, I ask you or others to give me some solid points or facts as to the effect of the A-11 on officiating. As we all know if officials have a negative opinion about a rule they may choose not to enforce it or circumvent it.

One of the great things about this country and this forum is freedom of expression. I did not hide the fact I don't like the A-11 but I did offer my opinion and asked for rebuttal. Nothing personal.

Yes, the majority on this forum appear against the A-11 and there has not been any information that has persuaded me otherwise. We are entitled to our opinion as well as you are entitled to yours. There is no need to personalize.

Whatever decision the Committee makes I will enforce regardless of my opinion.

No there's not, and unless and until you produce one, you're whistling past the cemetery.

It's unfortunate that you seem eager to reduce this discussion to a level of personal animosity. Unfortunately, you misunderstood what was intended as a simple suggestion, to alert you that you had let your emotions take control of your argument and allowed unnecessary and tactless personal attacks to replace what your position on the issue actually was.

Rather than even consider that advice, you chose to increase your beligerance and bluster and try and "outshout" anyone who dared disagree with you. That approach doesn't work all that well when you reach adulthood. Sadly the more frustrated you get, the lower you reach. Your assessment of what amounts to "respect" is yours to formulate, but again, you've displayed an area where your reach far exceeds your grasp of this concept as well. I didn't realize you are authorized to speak for others, I wonder if they realize that.

It's OK to disagree about something, without becoming necessary to be disagreeable. I've learned a lot more about football, and a lot of other things, when I've been shown to be wrong rather than insisting I must have been right. Actually, I try and keep an open mind and find myself able to be persuaded by a cogent, intelligent argument, presuming it's based on reality and discernable fact. Conversely, I've been able to develop a reasonably strong sense of BS repellant, which is often preceeded, and identified, by silly attempts at insults, and mocking, which by the way doesn't work all that well when the person trying to mock you, doesn't actually mean anything to you or much matter.

Although it was not called as such at the time since it's author was Paul Wolfowitz, this document is what gave rise to what is known as the "Bush Doctrine". What the doctrine/document means is the US has every right to pre-emptively strike anyone or any nation that it perceives as a threat to our national security.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...MDStrategy.pdf

sorry about helping to take the thread off track, but someone had already asked.

Thanks Mike, but for some reason the paper you referenced bears the title, "The National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction". What exactly does, "gave rise to what is known as the "Bush Doctrine" actually mean.

So is this the "Bush Doctrine", or is it actually what some media outlet decided should be referred to as the "Bush Doctrine", and is it guaranteed that anytime anyone refers to a "Bush Doctrine", that are actually referring to this specific report, or could they be referring to something different, that they might consider the "Bush Doctrine"?

Has there been some official designation allowing this document to be referred to as the "Bush doctrine"? I don't think so

My analogy was intended to suggest that just because there is a widely accepted generalized term applied to something, that has not been specifically identified, and is subsequently subject to wide, different interpretations and different versions that term, regardles of how common the reference might be, there are multiple versions of what the "Spirit of a Rule" may actually mean.

One understanding of "the spirit of the rule" may be different than another understanding of the "Spirit of THAT rule", as perceived by whomever is using the term and both versions, although different, may be just as reasonable.

I don't think there is any reasonable doubt that the spirit of the numbering exception had any intention to be used to expand into what is referred to as the A-11 Offense, but that is only my presumption. The language of the exception did not prohibit that type of expansion to the usage of the numbering exception, which absolutely exploits the oversight.

Exploiting an oversight is searching, and finding, a loophole that becomes a way around something until the way around is blocked, which has yet to happen. Ir's not immoral, not illegal and not necessarily unethical it's simply finding a workable path that nobody expected would ever be found.

All that will take to block the path is the stroke of the rule maker's pen, which apparently is a decision yet to be finalized. If that happens, it will make coach Bryan wrong, as to his interpretation. It will not make him a liar, a scoundrel or any of the other terms thrown at him, it will just make his assessment wrong and what he thought was a great idea unworkable.

No, the Bush Administration did not specifically name this document the "Bush Doctrine", but the principles it outlined is what became known as the "Bush Doctrine" because it was produced, endorsed and implemented by the Bush administration. It is the documentation you asked for but appear to be unwilling to accept. Who actually came up with calling the "Bush Doctrine" I don't know, but I'm sure someone takes credit for it and if you search long enough you may find a first reference out there somewhere.
Are you trying with all this to somehow imply no Bush Doctrine exists and/or no-one knows what it really is despite all evidence to the contrary? Read the opening quote by the Pres on the document itself that was produced by the White House to get a head start.

Mike, I'm not disputing that the "The National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction" likely represents what even the Bush Administration might consider the "Bush Doctrine". What I'm trying to suggest is that when referencing something specific, you need to call it by it's proper name, not whatever nick names it's been given. Gov. Palin could have avoided a lot of unnecessary flack, if she simply responded, "What exactly do you mean by the "Bush Doctrine", and then went on to address specific points that were suggested. It was a loaded question, designed as a "gotcha" and it was successful

Let me try and step back from a political analogy and point back towards football. We all know how inportant Rule 2 is, because the definitions there are the only definitions that matter to the game of NFHS football. You can look up tripping in the dictionary and it's a little different than the tripping definition included in Rule 2.

But, if you were to trip an old lady carring a football down mainstreet, a policeman might still arrest you because his definition doesn't make allowance for tripping a runner, even though the old lady was carrying a football. When a Pop Warner coach yells "chop block" from the sideline, it's very possible that his definition of chop block is very different than what you know is the official NFHS definition, which is the only one that matters.

All I was trying to suggest about the term "Spirit of the Rule" is that it very often is used in a broad, often vague sense, and means different things to different people, so there is no single "official" definition to specifically relate it to. Basically it can mean whatever you want it to mean.

Was this rule likely intended to relate only to scrimmage kick situations, probably. Was there any idea to expand the exception to prohibit formations that nobody though of, probably not, because nobody envisioned the A-11 Offense when the rule was written. Does the language used in the current version of the numbering exception leave room to drive a truck through, absolutely. Does that circumvent or exploit the rule, absolutely. Is that exploitation dishonest, illegal, immoral or unethical, really doubtful.

All this weeping and gnashing of teeth about the "Spirit of the Rule" is little more than a smoke screen. Whether you don't like what it does, or how it set about doing it, doesn't matter. It doesn't violate the rule, and exception, as currently written, so the only choices available are rewrite it, or let it continue as is. That decision will be made by the rule makers and they're not going to pay a lick of attention to all the insults, speculations, presumptions and the rest of a lot of pure BS.

I anticipate there will be some sort of revision and I hope it just answers this question without creating a bunch more unanticpated consequences. We shall see.

The best assessment, now or ever, of the a-11. :D

And the current administration's doctrine will not be all that relevant in less than two weeks.

Now see, there's part of the problem. No wonder poor Sarah couldn't answer the question. Others knowledgeable in the arena suggest that this document:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/nss2006.pdf

originally published in September, 2002, and then subsequently updated and republished in March, 2006 is the definitive statement of "The Bush Doctrine".

I believe the phrase "The Bush Doctrine" was first used by rabid neocon wingnut, I mean respected conservative commentator, Charles Krauthammer in February, 2001 in reference to the extreme unilateralism already being evidenced in some of the Bush Administration's policy decisions and actions.

Although the Bush Doctrine is hard to nail down because it changes all the time, the enduring precepts basically espouse the right of the US to wage "preemptive war" (most recently endorsed by Chancellor Adolf Hitler and Prime Minister Hideki Tojo), an approach to foreign policy that says f**k you to the rest of the world, ignores the existence of the US Constitution, and discounts actual facts and informed counsel in favor of wishful thinking.

Happy to clear that up for everyone.

JM

P.S. I'd be happy to wager a large sum of money that the current occupant has never actually read any of the documents that are alledged to articulate the principles of "The Bush Doctrine".

ajmc,

It is sad that the main point of this, you do not even understand what we are really talking about. You are too caught up in what you feel someone thinks personally about you than what we are actually discussing. If you are I quit officiating tomorrow, not many people would care. And you think that because you do not understand something, this is personal?

You have more to learn than I gave you credit for.

Happy off-season.

Peace

Maybe you are too new here to have seen this but I posted this back in August when we were talking about this BS:
Source: Anatony of A Game, David M. Nelson

NCAA
1966 - Mandatory numbering for guards, tackles and center of 50-70 established.

1968 - Requirement to have 5 players numbered 50-79 on the line of scrimmage was established after forceful action by one committee member, Coach John Vaught of Mississippi, who had seen his team lose 2 games to the Crimson Tide of Bear Bryant on tackle-eligible passes.

1981- the numbering exception came into existence so that teams no longer had to put numbered vests on subs put in for punt coverage. Excepted players had to report to U before the down.

1985 - Requirement to report was eliminated but language was tightened up to ensure teams did not use the numbering exception to get around the eligibility rules.

Interesting to note what Mr Nelson had to say re the 1985 change (he wrote the book in 1991) "The coaches were placed on their honor and players with 50-79 numbering exceptions in a scrimmage-kick formation were relieved from reporting to the umpire. The system has worked very well; no attempts have been made to usurp the rule."

Excellent summary TXMike illustrating the spirit and intent of the rule.

Officials who understand the history, spirit and intent of the rules can make better decisions on the field. But, maybe we do become overprotective of the game when we feel some creative coach decides to "make the game better."

If you consider the history of the numbering exception you have to accept the A-11 is making a travesty of the game as it was never intended to be used as it is.

We are asked, but we are not the final authority.

(I would also take just a moment to say that, while I disagree with Jeff on some things from time to time, I appear to be one of the few people here who has actually met him and dealt with him and one of fewer who can actually say that I like him, personally. Jeff's a damn good official and a dedicated one who not only cares a hell of a lot about the game of football, but also about the people who officiate it, especially those who are starting out and just trying to improve themselves. But - and not that he needs me to point this out to him and not that he particularly cares - his strong-mindedness, a benefit as an official, rubs some people here the wrong way, and I get that. For the sake of fairness, I just wanted to point out to all y'all from the perspective of someone who's dealt with Jeff Rutledge the official and the person that he's not always just trying to piss y'all off.)

Okay, end digression.

Here's one thing we're missing: suppose they tighten the numbering exception, whether it's through the proposed language or some other language that makes the most sense to however many people have the final say on it. Whatever.

Seriously - how many officials and how many teams is this really affecting? Raise your hand if you've seen the A-11. I know Kurt would have you believe (and ESPN Mag would play up) that it's a great many, but how many of us, the foot soldiers, the ones who are actually out there, and who form a fairly decent cross section of football officials across the nation, will actually be affected by a change in this rule?

I would guess it's not a lot. So while we can have strong opinions about the offense, its intent, its inventor, the pub it gets, what words might be used to close the loophole or whatever, it seems to me to be a lot of sound and fury about something that probably isn't going to affect the majority of us, or even a decent number of us. Unless I'm reading this whole thing wrong.

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. 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? 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.

When your candidate can't answer simple questions the best thing to do is BLAME THE MEDIA!

As someone who voted for McCain in the past, I was very disappointed in his selection of Palin, or should I say, a Valley Girl. I think his advanced age affected his judgment. So sorry, because he is a truly good man. The continued effort for her to be in the spotlight and the continued hero-status she is given by some GOPers is disappointing. We should strive to obtain the best and most qualified candidates, not a token woman. My wife was incensed that they chose her, a truly unqualified candidate as the first woman on a national GOP ticket. It was an insult to women.

As for A-11, I am not worried about it. If I ever see it, it shall be a challenge, but that is what we are out there for.

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.

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.

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.

I don't believe this is true.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Damn hyena.:D

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

Interesting, but many felt, reasonably, that she was at least as qualified as the top of the other ticket.

You won't need to wait that long. Just wait until the rules changes for 2009 are announced in a few months then we can have another 20 page thread on the A-11, Kurt Bryan, hyenas and any other topic that comes to mind. :eek:

What really gets me is that if this is such a "revolutionary" offense, you would think it would be unstoppable and would help the team put up high scores and huge margins of victory. But it didn't. The Piedmont team won 8 games, but only put up big numbers twice - they scored 55 points against a 2-8 team, and 50 points against an 0-10 team. The rest of their scores looked like any other HS football team (24-18, 20-17, etc.) How is that "revolutionary" and going to "change the way the game of football is played?":rolleyes:

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.

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.

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.

Nice. I thought about going with the abuse dept lines, but realized the stupid git probably wouldn't get it.

Reminds me of what one coach told me about our 12U team last year: that the league wouldn't let me have the QB take the snap while facing a sideline. Considering that our club practically was the league, that was funny!

And when coaches aren't hearing it from other coaches, they're getting it from parents, all of whom expect your game to look like whatever they see on TV.

Robert

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

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

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.

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

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

The team here that ran it went 1-9.

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

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.

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.

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.

I agree. It's not that difficult to determine an obvious kicking situation.

The only other instance where I've seen someone kick a field goal on other than 4th down is when a team has a 60-point lead in the second half and does so out of courtesy rather than running a regular scrimmage play inside their opponents 20. This has only happened once though and it was pretty obvious that's what they were doing (the guy on a knee with a kicking tee was a pretty good clue).

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.

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.

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

A simple question...if you really believe this, I would like to know how many holds away from the point of attack with no advantage gained have you called in your career?

Excellent! This means I can count on not having to attend a state rules interpretation meeting this year!

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?

Daggo66, How do you get, from anything I've suggested to, "This means I can count on not having to attend a state rules interpretation meeting this year!"? I don't know what State you're referring to, but I would presume your State's interpretation meeting usually focuses on discussing and explaining WHAT IS WRITTEN, rather than drift off to acknowledge a lot of misunderstandings that people may have presumed were intended or imagined.

Does your State meeting TELL you what certain things mean, or do they ask for a vote on what everybody would like things to mean?

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?

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

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

Please show some manners. I feel as if I'm being attacked by a hyena.

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.")

Because judgment are based on opinions. And those opinions of rules tell reflect on what rules we enforce to the letter and what rules we might not worry that much about. I know we have had many discussions on this site about hurdling and there are opinions that may or may not go along with the black and white of the rule.

Do you have any other questions?

Peace

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Peace

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.

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.

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.