Glad you cleared that up.

This was my assumption of your intent, but thank you for clearing it up. I agree with you on this, except that I also think KB made himself the focus. I don't blame him, he was trying to promote an offense that would likely make him a good amount of money; but he wasn't honest about that part.

FWIW, I also agree with your assessment of the economic turmoil.

I think you owe it to jimpiano to tell us which remarks you think are bigoted.

You're right, I'm wrong. Our country needs more youth coaches writing about homosexual priests and football coaches having an affair, not less. My bad.

And God forbid our youth ever get exposed to the play by Sophocles called Oedipus Rex.

Two words: False Dichotomy

He said it's not necessarily relevant. He didn't say it was a job qualification. Good grief.

Is that the play where Sophocles lines up under center, then rises up and walks towards Oedipus Rex, on his bench, gesturing as if something is wrong and the snap won't go off? That type play was rules illegal, you might refer to Case book; 9.9.3.B.

Let's go back to discussing real football.

I think it was the play where Oedipus' mom is the cheerleader and she attempts to distract the linebackers as Oedipus turns to the official and screams, "My eye....My eye!!!! There's something hot in my eye!!!!"

It was called the old "Poker and run."

That is all I ever intended:

I just don't get the vitriol against the A-11.

If it was born as an unintended consequence from a poorly written rule then, by all means, close the loophole. But why rail against the innovation it represents? This type of reaction can lead to the A-11 obtaining cult status.

Better to let the A-11 try to stand on its own against the defensive minds who always find ways to dismantle the most innovative offenses.

How this was hijacked into a disucssion of Kurt Bryan's literary career is beyond me.

I don't officiate football and as a fan I have no desire to see an offense where anyone can catch a pass. But I am curious to know more about why some do. And certainly we should be able to have a discussion about a football strategy without calling people bigots or worse.

If you guys will add this instigator to your Ignore list, you'll find the forum much more enjoyable.

There's one problem with engaging conversation. It was not innovative on two counts. First, it was a re-run of a strategy used before. Thus, by defnition, not innovative.

Secondy, in sports we normally don't bestow the label "innovative" on practices that run contrary to the rules...be it the word or spirit of. Otherwise, lining up 12 men would be innovative, moving forward at the snap would be innovative, tackling receivers before the ball reached them would be innovative.

The A-11 was a scam and Kurt and Stan were it's artists. They are getting the negative attention that all scammers deserve.

Yeah, I missed those remarks also.

My point being "critical thinking" can have consequences and they may not be good.

Kurt Bryan and the A-11 have become synonomous. His "critical thinking" or innovation or whatever you choose to call it was never the intent of the rules.

Think about it, numbering, which predates many of us, was for easy identification of interior linemen. The exception was intended for punt formations and NOT regular scrimmage downs and survived over 20 years without a serious challenge.

Then comes Kurt Byran with his "critical thinking" and I am going to advance that there was probably coaches doing an A-11 deviant but it never got reported on ESPN, the New York Times, etc. as a great new innovation to the game.

If Bryan had simply run the A-11 at Piedmont and stayed low key it would have never been a problem.

This is the key to the entire saga. I can't think of any reason why he simply wouldn't have gone to his local official's association to ask if the formation was legal. They would have said that while not in the spirit of the rule, there was nothing against it. His poor little school could then compete with the Goliaths they played. Evidently there was another motive.

A very disconcerting act indeed. 9-5.