What I Like About the A-11

[Ed Hickland]

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.

[3SPORT]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

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.

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

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by 3SPORT

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.

[JRutledge]

[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]

Peace

Originally Posted by 3SPORT

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

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.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by Ref Ump Welsch

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.

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.

__________________
Ed Hickland, MBA, CCP
[email protected]

[ajmc]

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.

[OverAndBack]

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

[3SPORT]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

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

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

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

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.

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.

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.

[ajmc]

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.

[TXMike]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

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.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by TXMike

all you guys need to do in Fed is mimic the NCAA rule on this.

Agreed. I hope this is where FED goes.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by ajmc

...

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.

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?

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

I like the cut of your jib, sir.