Jim: the critical thinking you seem to support came from an unsportsmanlike twisting of a rule that is neither in the spirit nor intent of that rule. Further, he is profiting off of his "innovation". I signed up for emails from him and got one recently where they talk about "Numerical Camouflage", meaning you put #88, #86, #68 out on one side of the formation, run the appropriate players up to the line of scrimmage, set for one second and snap the ball, thus placing the defense under "stress" as they only have one second to determine who's eligible. That isn't innovation, that's cheating.

The NFHS and all it's member states and countless member schools agreed that it was unsportsmanlike cheating and voted to restore the original intent of the rule. Lastly, this all comes from a man who apparently has written a book about a football coach having a homosexual relationship with a priest. In Cali that is probably acceptable but to me it's sickening especially when you consider he's coaching youth.

Kurt and Stan are not the "authors". They are the "branders and packagers" of an offense that has been tried before, and the slick salesmen of a product that they were warned did not fit within the intent or spirit of the rules. They knowingly mislead players, administrators, other coaches and the media in regards to both the offense's authorship and future legality to make a buck.

If they achieve cult-like status, it won't be because of those who turned the spotlight on their shenanigans, it will be because of the gullible few who couldn't wait to send them $199 to learn how to circumvent the rules and who now swallow their claims of martyrdom at the hands of that terrible beast, NFHS.

I like to compare Coach Bryan and his "critical thinking" to the Wall Street bankers and their "critical thinking" that has gotten the country by selling mortgages to people who possibly could not pay them back. They got paid, the mortgagees got screwed.

My simile of "critical thinking" is called cheating. Thank goodness we have the Rules Committee calling a stop to this nonsense.

Those "bankers" packaged home loans into new debt instruments and bet the housing bubble would never burst. As for selling mortgages to people who could not afford them, that was done earlier, spurred on by the politicians who insisted that loan qualifications be overlooked so more people could enjoy home ownership.

There is plenty of blame to pass around, and a declining number of active taxpayers left to pay for it all.

But I digress.

The Federation acted wisely in changing the rules that led to the current version of the A-11. And I won't argue with the opinions of you and the others on the motivation of Bryan.

I am just wary of making him the focus instead of the A-11.
But I digress.

He made himself the focus.

The subject of priests and homosexual activity is hardly fiction and its practice is nearly universal.

Whatever Bryan's motivations about the A-11 and whether they are are pure or not have no connection to his fiction writing.

If we condemn authors because they write books about subjects we don't like then we are going to be reading a lot fewer books.

Uhm...what?

Are you serious or are you seriously prejudiced?

Again, are you serious? A high school coach, a person who is supposed to be a leader of youth, writes about football players and homosexual relationships with priests and you think he should be allowed to continue coaching?

I'm not catholic and I find this statement extremely uninformed; or poorly worded.

It looks like you're saying catholic priests are nearly universally homosexuals.
You might, however, be saying the use of this subject in fiction writing is common place.

Where is this nonsense headed? Someone came up with what he thought was a new and innovative idea, that skirted the edge of a rule's inadequate language, and circumvented the basic intent of a rule exception. He tried hard, real hard. maybe even way too hard to persuade people this was a great idea. His effort failed.

He was unsuccessful, because too many people just didn't buy into his interpretation, or concept, to the exception, as being reasonable. After a couple of years of intense discussion and very public argument, beating both the pros and cons to death, a rule modification closing the original loophole appears imminent.

Turns out the "concept" was not just under the line, but crossed over it, and the line is being redrawn to verify and prevent it. The argument has apparently been settled, the way rule differences are supposed to be settled; the rule makers considered the issue, contemplated it and after deliberation rendered a judgment.

To those of you screaming "cheating", look up the definition, there was no deceipt, no subterfuge, the argument was open the objectives clearly stated and all the efforts at persuasion simply failed to prevent the ultimate judgment. There was no cheating, the argument in favor of this idea was simply wrong. A lot of ideas turn out to be wrong, which doesn't mean they were evil or sinister or motivated by evil intent. They were just bad ideas that, thankfully, didn'y fly. Unfortunately a lot of bad ideas often do fly.

Expanding this argument to suggest this man should be banned from coaching, unless you have some real solid, specific, hard evidence to support such an idea is way, way out beyond the reach of your headlights and is leading down a dark, dark road.

The issue appears to have been settled, the rule makers have (or until the actual rule language comes out, seem to have) spoken. It's over, there's nothing to be gained by rallying the villagers to break out the torches and storm Dr. Frankenstein's castle.

The choice of the word practice was probably poor. My point was was that reports of sexual activity by catholic priests have been from all parts of the world and the subject as part of a plot line for a book is hardly shocking. In fact, sexual activity by religious figures of all faiths have appeared as story lines in hosts of books. Have you never read "Winesburg, Ohio"by Sherwood Anderson which is a frequent recommended novel for high school literature courses?

The plot line of a sexually active priest in Bryan's novel certainly is not an endorsement by him of that lifestyle anymore than Charles Dickens advocated the recruitment of kids into crime by writing "Oliver Twist".

Keep the argument focused on the A-11, not on Bryan's life as an author.
The two are not linked and trying to connect them only confuses the matter.

I plead guilty to "poorly worded".

The real issue is not the sexual orientation of Catholic priests but their commitment to chastity. It is that fall from grace that serves as plot lines in a host of books and is not limited to catholic priests.

So you're saying you're just plain stupid? I think you owe everyone on this forum an appology for your bigoted remarks.

Just tell me what my "bigotry" is.

Apparently you're dumber than I thought. Never mind, just crawl back in your hole.