A-11 is no longer legal.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by Jim D.

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

Glad you cleared that up.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

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.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jim D.

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

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

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by ajmc

[I][B]

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.

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.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by kdf5

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by kdf5

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.

Two words: False Dichotomy

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

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

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

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.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

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."

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Let's go back to discussing real football.

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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

This message is hidden because jimpiano is on your ignore list.

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

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

But why rail against the innovation it represents?

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

Yeah, I missed those remarks also.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland
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.

Originally Posted by jimpiano

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.

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.

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

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.

[Sonofanump]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

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."

A very disconcerting act indeed. 9-5.