|
|
Post by zmurdman on Oct 29, 2008 15:36:36 GMT -6
I joined the coaching staff of a 4th-5th grade team this season. The team did well, the kids had a great time and there was a strong indication of support and appreciation from the parents (very cool!) I was asked and agreed to join the board of directors and volunteered to redesign the league website and host it on one of my company’s servers. I love the game, love coaching and I am happy to donate my time and resources…
My main concern is that our league has a couple rules that I would like to discuss changing with the board over the off-season, but I am hesitant since I am new to the board and most of the other members have been serving for ten or more years.
This season I have been reading the comments in this forum as a visitor and have come to appreciate the advice and opinions you share. I would like to hear what you coaches think about the following (I may borrow some of your arguments!):
1) WE DON’T KEEP SCORE – I have a big problem with this rule. I was told that flack from parents and squabbling was reduced greatly when they adopted this rule (several years ago), but I hate the rule. Everyone says “We don’t keep score, but if we did we won 28 to 7, wink wink,” which I think sends a terrible message and sets a bad example. Also, if parents were squawking too much, that’s an entirely different problem. If kids show up, work hard and play their best they will… what? end up in a tie? Thoughts?
2) NO TACKLE ELIGIBLE – which is a strange one, since the weight restriction on ball carriers is waived for one of the TE’s (meaning it’s ok to have a TE catch and advance the ball even though he exceeds the weight restriction). This rule was interpreted by one ref to mean that an unbalanced offensive line was an illegal formation. I lobbied and lost the call on that one (but had it run against my defense in at least 3 games!) Go figure! Since I am hoping to implement Coach Dave Cisar’s single wing next season I would like to get this one addressed! I don’t think there should be any exception to the weight restrictions, but as long as there are at least 7 bodies on the LOS it’s a legal formation! Thoughts?
Thanks in advance for your comments.
Coach M
|
|
|
|
Post by cyflcoach on Oct 29, 2008 17:03:48 GMT -6
There's absolutely nothing wrong with keeping score or being competitive, in my opinion. The problem arises when scores and competition are not kept in the proper perspective. Striving to win is very important to me and I try to stress that to the kids I coach. I want to win as much as anyone, but understand that we will not win every game and that playing the best football we can play as a team and doing it the right way, truly mean more to me than the final score of any game we might play. If that is an entrenched idea in your league though, good luck trying to get traction with this concept!
The tackle eligible comes down to what rules you play by in my estimation. We play by UIL/NCAA rules here in Texas so technically, in order for the tackle to be eligible, he would have to be wearing an eligible number. Numbering guidelines are only used as a general rule within our league so it would not present a problem here. I don't really understand an exemption for one tight end to be over the limit though. Our tight end limits are 20 lbs. over our ball carrier levels at each level of play.
Just my 2 cents worth on the subject... I would encourage you to at least "test the waters" though with your ideas. As one of the "old guard" in my own organization, it is good to hear fresh ideas from those who are new to our league. Much of what might be proposed has already been considered, but, you never know where a good idea might come from that would possibly significantly improve play on the field or the enjoyment of those participating. Best of luck!!!
Dave Hartman
CYFL Coach
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedseay on Oct 30, 2008 6:34:41 GMT -6
Coach: It's possible (and actually quite common) to unbalance an offensive line while still keeping eligible-number receivers on both ends -- the two issues are separate. I would challenge the "no unbalanced" interpretation but let the no-tackle-eligible rule stand. As a former hands-of-stone OT myself, I'm no big fan of the play...  |
|
|
|
Post by zmurdman on Oct 30, 2008 9:57:48 GMT -6
I understand your point, but our league does not restrict position or pass eligibility by jersey number (exempt from 50 - 79 numbering restriction), so that is not the issue.
Honestly, I don't really understand the need for the rule as long as we get rid of the weight exemption for a TE, it's a non-issue. If the Tackle is under the restricted weight and at the end of the offensive line, he should be an eligible receiver.
Thanks for your comments,
Coach M
|
|
|
|
Post by zmurdman on Oct 30, 2008 10:19:42 GMT -6
Coach Hartman,
We are in agreement regarding competition. It is not only healthy, but also provides the framework for some of the most valuable lessons football teaches… The lessons of teamwork, sportsmanship, pride, and overcoming adversity are all forged in the fires of competition. As with anything, it can be taken too far, but it’s our job as coaches to lead the way.
“If it doesn't matter who wins or loses, then why do they keep score?” – Vince Lombardi.
Our rules are based upon WIAA (NFHS) rules with our league-specific modifications, and like your league, we do not enforce the numbering guidelines for eligibility. However, if one of the tight ends is exempted from the weight restriction (90 lbs. in my division), I don’t see any difference between a 110 pound tight end or a 110 pound tackle on the end of the LOS. Go figure!
I certainly appreciate your 2 cents, especially as a member of the “old guard.” I will tread lightly as I volunteer to serve on the rules committee this year. Maybe if the other board members see my commitment they will be more receptive.
Coach M
|
|
|
|
Post by los on Oct 30, 2008 19:27:10 GMT -6
The TE weight exemption is kinda confusing....I'd probably want this rule done away with completely.......if they want the option of using the TE's in the passing game = they should use kids the proper weight, if they want some biggins in there for blocking purposes....don't throw them the ball....simple as that.......we actually had a similar discussion at one of our league rules meetings.....one of the coach's threw out the idea of allowing an "over the ball carrier weight limit player", to catch a pass..."in the endzone only".....then another lobbied for "any weight player be allowed to punt the ball"...(in our league, the red stripers could only kick off)......both of these failed to pass in our league.....just seemed like it would create more confusion, than any productive good it would do for the league........Generally, when guys pushed for these special exemptions...they had some kind of self serving reason?.....If we had played like a 6-7 yr old age group, I'd "consider" not keeping a score in this group, just so they could learn to play.....as it was, we had 8-10's and 11-12's and kept score in these age groups. Good luck.....los
|
|
|
|
Post by zmurdman on Nov 1, 2008 22:22:33 GMT -6
Thanks LOS,
In addition to the TE weight exemption, there is no rule prohibiting over-weight-limit players from advancing interceptions, fumbles, tipped passes, punts, etc. If the reasoning for a weight limit is safety and fairness, we really shouldn’t be making any exceptions to the weight limit. I’m thinking of lobbying for the following modification to our league rules:
On offense, striped players (players over the established ball-carrying weight) are prohibited from playing in the backfield (already in rules) or at either end of the offensive line (addition to rule). No striped player will be eligible to receive a kick, punt, pass or run the ball by design. Further, any striped player is prohibited from advancing the football. If a striped player gains possession of the football the play is immediately whistled and the ball is dead. Under this interpretation, it would not be illegal for a striped player to catch a tipped pass, but it would cause the play to be whistled dead at the spot the catch was made, thereby preventing the 165 pounder from creaming a 62 pounder!
What do you think?
Coach M
|
|
|
|
Post by los on Nov 2, 2008 6:43:18 GMT -6
Sounds fair to me, coach M.....some coach's "may" scream about the (either end of the offensive line "addition") thinking it may weaken their abilty to block the edge vs a "big defensive emol"......but, there are other options......tackle over unbalanced......pulling linemen.....playing some of "your better" (legal weight kids) at TE.....etc.....basically, I like it, for "an unlimited weight format".....gets 2 more smaller kids in the game offensively......less likely to "accidently" have an overweight TE or WR, downfield, catching a pass or deflected jump ball lol! good luck......los
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedseay on Nov 6, 2008 5:18:55 GMT -6
Honestly, I don't really understand the need for the rule as long as we get rid of the weight exemption for a TE, it's a non-issue. If the Tackle is under the restricted weight and at the end of the offensive line, he should be an eligible receiver. There is an additional element here -- when teams run tackle-eligible plays, (in the few circumstances where teams are allowed to these days), they do so as a trick play, shifting a split end off the line outside the tackle, uncovering him to make him eligible by formation. This is a subtle difference for defenses to spot at higher levels, much less in youth football. I can, as noted earlier, completely understand the ban on the tackle-eligible play under your circumstances. Under "real" NFHS rules, of course, it is eliminated by the eligible-number restrictions -- except in the case of the A-11. |
|
|
|
Post by eickst on Nov 6, 2008 10:07:03 GMT -6
Hey ted I was under the impression that once a formation is "set" if a player is ineligible he remains ineligible even if a shift would leave him in an eligible position....?
|
|
|
|
Post by zmurdman on Nov 6, 2008 12:29:30 GMT -6
Ted:
Your point is well taken and I assume this was part of the original intent of the rule. They were trying to avoid "trickery" and that's understandable. Further, since we play without the numbering restrictions, the real issue in our league is whether or not we let over-sized kids catch and run the ball. We plan on running the single wing offense next year and doubt anyone will be runnning the A-11 in our league anytime soon!
Perhaps I need to address the weight-related rule changes (modifications) I discussed earlier, and ask to have the Tackle Eligible rule better defined...
Regarding eligibility and shifts, I dug this out of my 2008 rule book...
According to NHFS: The fact that offense (A) lined up with a player wearing an eligible receiver's number in the interior line does not eliminate the possibility of this player being eligible to receive a pass following a shift (7-5-6a). This, of course, assumes that 5 of the 7 on the LOS wear numbers 50-79 and does NOT apply in the case of a scrimmage kick formation (A-11).
|
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jan 24, 2009 12:54:07 GMT -6
Just plain silly. The kids will keep score if nobody else does. Do they distinguish between a TE and a SE? Is there a different weight limit for ends who are split some distance? So... ETCGGT--------------E ...and the left E, because he's a TE, is a weight exception, but the ref said what? That that position had to have two players between there and the snapper? Robert |
|
|
|
Post by justryn2 on Jan 26, 2009 11:44:46 GMT -6
Our league rules are much as you propose zmurdman; players over the ball carrier limit MUST play on the LOS from tackle to tackle. This applies on both offense and defense. We are allowed to have unbalanced lines and we can have an "striper" on the end but he is not an eligible receiver. If a "striper" gains possession of the ball, the play is dead at the point where he gains possession.
|
|
