A-11 is no longer legal.

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

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

Are you serious or are you seriously prejudiced?

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

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?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by kdf5

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?

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.

[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.

[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."

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by kdf5

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?

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.

[Jim D.]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

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.

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

[jimpiano]

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.

Just tell me what my "bigotry" is.

[Jim D.]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Just tell me what my "bigotry" is.

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

[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.