A-11 is no longer legal.
 

It is got ruled on today and they have banned it for all NFHS play.. SO its done..

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/footbal...n=ncaaf,141441

But it did have an apparent lasting effect. In a scrimmage kick formation on downs 1 thru 3 the number required to wear 50-79 is reduced to 4, provided the snapper is one of those wearing 1-49 or 80-99. That's going to affect swinging gate formations. It may not be A-11, but 7-11.

Robert in the Bronx

A feeble and unsuccessful attempt of "making lemonade."

Could not help myself, had to go to the A-11 web site and found this note:

<TABLE style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" borderColor=#ffffff cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="85%" border=1><TBODY><TR><TD width="100%">February 10, 2009

Dear Football Coaches, Rest assured the A-11 Offense is here to stay. There are too many demonstrated benefits for the teams wanting to use it (such as reducing injury rates). Please review the Position Paper Link on the A-11 Offense site for more details.

Moving forward into the 2009 season and beyond, several options are under review for any team in America wanting to "retain the right" to use the A-11 Offense if they believe it will help their team, their league and/or their entire section compete in a more equitable fashion based on their circumstances.
Our group will help lead the way for any team nationwide wanting to use the A-11 Offense in 2009 and the future. Thank you very much for all of the great ideas submitted to us by coaches throughout the country.

Please check back at our web site for all related updates, and also the upcoming Blue Print enabling your team to use the A-11 Offense in 2009 and beyond.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Any word on how many attended the recent sessions?

They need to simply adopt 8-man football!

Or simply use the formation, but put the proper numbers on the players. I think we all know that it wasn't the formations themselves that were the problem.

But then it would be easier to tell who the ineligible players were...wait a minute.

If at first you don't succeed
 

Sue' em!!!

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/...uarterback.php

Lawsuit? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!! !!!

Can't wait to see the 4 team A11FL. Who will cover the travel costs?

So I read that article and at the bottom of it someone provided a link to some books Kurt Bryan has written. One of them is called "The Double Move" and has a interesting plot...I've always wanted a book that combined football and gay love affairs with religious figures who also happen to be serial killers...:eek:

"When Kenny Brown is named the new football coach at a prestigious college, he puts together a top-notch coaching staff including Phillip Zanton, a former pro football superstar. However, Kenny doesn't realize that Zanton is having an affair with the powerful but morally bankrupt priest, father Rudy. As the truth about the priest begins to unfold, people start to disappear. After the brutal murder of a friend, Kenny goes to father Rudy for support, unaware that he is the priest's next target."



http://www.kurtbryan.com/

Just the kind of mind we want coaching our young people! :rolleyes::(

Smell of San Francisco sex? Ewwwwwwww.

Knees is plural, not possessive.

Well, the list of authors who wrote successful novels about unsavory characters is pretty long and impressive. Fortunately they are judged by their writing and story telling abilities, not their choice of plots.

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.

i think the A-11 represents critical thinking on the part of its authors and practitioners and should be countered by the same. More than likely it will not survive.

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.

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.

Yeah, but then who'd be hailing him as the genius creator of this innovative, exciting, safer offense?

"Ahhhh, it's a profit deal!" - Navin R. Johnson

Na-Na-Naaa-Na
Na-Na-Naaa-Na
HEY HEY HEY
GOOD BYE!

Let's call Jimmy Swaggert and have him make the apology. I love drama!

Terrible strategy...befitting the goal
 

The petitions are now available. Kurt and Stan are leading the march on FED. A sampling:

"Is there room in America for more than one style of football offense now & in the future?

If you believe the answer is Yes; and your school, your league or your entire section wants to use the A-11 Offense or a Hybrid of it, please read below about how to submit this Dual Petition to your own State Association and the NFHS. Over the last two years, many hard-working coaches & student-athletes across the USA took a chance & tried something innovative in the game of football. Now, A-11 Offense concepts and strategies are here to stay in their true capacity, in a hybrid form, and/or in the new A-11 Camouflage attack for teams wanting to use different ideas."

So, without the A-11 there is only one style of offense. This will come as a complete surprise to every coach I know.

...and, for $149 you too can get my book on the advanced concepts of the A-11. And, I'll throw in a bottle of snake oil.

Just imagine, for only $149 you too can run this advanced offense and receive a bottle of snake oil.

Be the first in your state to run this truly remarkable offense, an offense that revolutionizes the game of football!!

... but wait! Call within the next thirty minutes and we'll send you two bottles of snake oil along with the A- 11 book, all for the unbelievably low price of $149!!

Ed, I am faxing you a check TODAY.:D

Wow, these guys are truly delusional.

IF YOU WANT EVERYONE TO BE ELIGIBLE, PLAY 8 OR 9 MAN!!! This was meant for the "small schools that can't compete" (well, so were classifications like AA and AAA, etc, but that's obviously too easy to follow and believe).

As they say, if you can't win, then take your ball and go home and play somewhere else so you can have it your way. The big boys don't want you plaing in our yard anyway! Make sure your A-11 leagues give 'participation trophies' as well! (to all 3 teams nationwide)

No, in all or most versions of 8s or 9s the usual eligibility rules apply. You're thinking 6s.

I think he is trying to say that in 8 and 9 man football, numberring requirements for being on the line don't apply.

I think Robert's trying to say that they do. :rolleyes: