|
Post by 19delta on Jan 29, 2009 23:50:01 GMT -6
The Fed rules meeting is over...numbering exception on which the A-11 is based was supposedly a major topic of discussion.
Anyone have any inside information on what, if anything, was decided in regards to the A-11?
|
|
|
Post by darebelcoach on Jan 30, 2009 8:51:24 GMT -6
I have heard so many different "rumors" as to what is going ot happen with the A-11...we face it because a team in our conference runs it. I have heard it will be banned, but like you, I would like to know what, if anything, is going to be done.
|
|
coacher
Sophomore Member
Posts: 191
|
Post by coacher on Jan 30, 2009 9:03:30 GMT -6
I asked one of our state reps that went to the meeting. It will not become public until it goes through the board. He said 5 weeks probably. I asked him on Jan 26th. The question was asked on the A11 forum and it was answered w/ a generic answer and then was locked w/ no further question. That seems to point to the direction of it was ruled out.
|
|
|
Post by tog on Jan 30, 2009 9:52:03 GMT -6
I asked one of our state reps that went to the meeting. It will not become public until it goes through the board. He said 5 weeks probably. I asked him on Jan 26th. The question was asked on the A11 forum and it was answered w/ a generic answer and then was locked w/ no further question. That seems to point to the direction of it was ruled out. let us hope so
|
|
|
Post by justryn2 on Jan 30, 2009 10:29:09 GMT -6
Has anyone read the A-11 article in the January issue of American Football Monthly? The author claims he is dispelling myths about the A-11 but the only coaches he interviews are Steve Humphries and two other coaches who are running this abomination. I truly hope the rules committee closes this ridiculous loophole this year.
|
|
|
Post by coachcreme on Jan 30, 2009 10:40:56 GMT -6
Well we faced it 2 seasons ago and gave up 17 points.....I don't have a problem with it...Only that the next week after playing a team who runs the A11 your defense players may become computer over load in the head....
|
|
|
Post by darebelcoach on Jan 30, 2009 14:28:31 GMT -6
See, Coachcreme, you hit it right on the head....a team in our conference runs it, it is their sole offense, not a couple plays here or there.....but like you said coach, the main problem I think it causes is that you have to change your entire defense for that one game....it is a lot to handle for a high school kid....they need to put a stop to this "offense" and close the loophole.
|
|
|
Post by coachinghopeful on Jan 30, 2009 15:01:45 GMT -6
If it is, I wonder what all those people who paid hundreds of dollars for A-11 materials will do now...
I can already hear ESPN whining over this.
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Jan 30, 2009 15:51:29 GMT -6
Has anyone read the A-11 article in the January issue of American Football Monthly? The author claims he is dispelling myths about the A-11 but the only coaches he interviews are Steve Humphries and two other coaches who are running this abomination. I truly hope the rules committee closes this ridiculous loophole this year. That article was the one of hte biggest pieces of {censored} propoganda I have ever read. It read like one of those supplement ads in Muscle and Fitness. I am hoping it gets banned so I can release my new DVD series on the V11ARB. It stands for Veer 11 Air Raid Belly and it will flip the football world on its ear. Fact or Myth?
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Jan 30, 2009 17:09:48 GMT -6
they need to put a stop to this "offense" and close the loophole.... This, I agree with whole-heartedly. the main problem I think it causes is that you have to change your entire defense for that one game....it is a lot to handle for a high school kid.... This, I do not. That is not the reason we should get rid of the A-11. I think I get what you are saying, but that sounds wrong. I always plan on running an offense that forces a DC to change everything for that week. Right now, that is spread (bring on the 8-man fronts and 50 looks)......once more teams start spreading out, I'm looking to go SW.
|
|
|
Post by airman on Jan 30, 2009 17:11:52 GMT -6
I have yet to figure out why the A 11 generates such dislike. It is an offense just like any other. I generally think those who dislike it tend to dislike any offense which is not telephone booth like. offenses which use creativity and require the opponent to take time out of their practice or change a defense is what I like.
I do not think it will be banned to be honest. Coach B got the blessing of the Fed before he when ahead with the offense.
|
|
billyn
Sophomore Member
Posts: 231
|
Post by billyn on Jan 30, 2009 17:20:49 GMT -6
I don't have any problem with the offense other than the fact that you have 11 eligible numbered players on the field. The formations are fine. However, I promise you if I ran the A11 we would shift, motion, and move as much as possible to make it impossible for the defense and the officials to know for certain who was eligible on each play. To me that is the key advantage in using it, and someone is going to do just that with it eventually. Do we really want to encourage that. Imagine this thing run as a hurry up snap it as fast as you can offense. In this way it changes the game of football too much. We already have soccer, rugby, and australian rules football for people who want that kind of game.
|
|
|
Post by spos21ram on Jan 30, 2009 18:54:44 GMT -6
I have yet to figure out why the A 11 generates such dislike. It is an offense just like any other. I generally think those who dislike it tend to dislike any offense which is not telephone booth like. offenses which use creativity and require the opponent to take time out of their practice or change a defense is what I like. I do not think it will be banned to be honest. Coach B got the blessing of the Fed before he when ahead with the offense. I didn't know every offense has 11 eligible numbers on the field at the same time
|
|
|
Post by coachinghopeful on Jan 30, 2009 20:03:56 GMT -6
The A-11 is creative, and if anything Bryan & Co. have really given everyone a million different ideas for some sweet fake punts. I don't think there's some platonic idea of what football is supposed to be, either.
The main issue I have with the A-11 isn't even the offense itself, so much as it is the officials working the games (not to mention all the annoying media hype). Officials already struggle to keep track of who is an eligible receiver and who isn't by formation, and anyone here who's been coaching for a while can tell you stories of refs allowing ineligible receivers to run wild on them and laughing at the defenses' valid protests. About the only thing the officials do consistently get right is that if a player has a jersey in the 50s-70s, he's not an eligible receiver. That's not even always a given.
The A-11 ruins that. All of a sudden the covered/uncovered receivers become a moot point because the officials can't keep track of who's on the line or who's off. Teams will line up and play defense correctly, but get screwed over because a ref thinks someone on the interior of the line was eligible when he wasn't.
The bottom line is that if the powers that believe the A-11 should stick around, then they need to also overturn the "ineligible numbers" and "ineligible receivers" rules. Those rules have been a part of the game for a long time, and they were put on the books for a reason. I don't see those rules being struck down anytime soon because someone found a (silly) loophole. Do you?
|
|
|
Post by tog on Jan 30, 2009 20:28:26 GMT -6
I have yet to figure out why the A 11 generates such dislike. It is an offense just like any other. I generally think those who dislike it tend to dislike any offense which is not telephone booth like. offenses which use creativity and require the opponent to take time out of their practice or change a defense is what I like. I do not think it will be banned to be honest. Coach B got the blessing of the Fed before he when ahead with the offense. 1. this is the same fed with football rules that are really really lame 2. you have read enough about the offense my team uses--are we phonebooth? and I can't stand the idea of the a-11 3. i don't want linemen to go the way of the dodo bird 4. i hope it gets banned 5. i have heard from a couple of sources that it would
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 30, 2009 20:41:45 GMT -6
I have yet to figure out why the A 11 generates such dislike. Perhaps it is the fact that the entire offense is based on exploiting a rule. It is "getting over", just like those who exploit loopholes in the tax code, in social services with women having babies for checks, in education where parents get their kids put into special education to get the "umbrella" of protection. Perhaps it was the slam marketing campaign, with the originators consistently giving vague sales/political answers to direct questions. Not according to its creator. Humphries was quoted in a Dec 2008 article as saying “Because A-11 makes everybody eligible, it looks a lot more like soccer" Not according to the responses on this site. Those speaking out against the A-11 have not done so based on its spacing or passing nature. It has been the exploitation issue, as well as the slick marketing and the elimination of certain positions/player types from the game.
|
|
|
Post by coachweav88 on Jan 30, 2009 21:19:07 GMT -6
I just don't like it because it seems like a gimmick offense to me relying more on "tricking people" than out executing people. More a focus on the "wonderful" scheme than executing it well. It's the same type of philosophy of some of the rag-tag teams we play against. They are terrible because they are trying to "out smart" us rather than outplaying us. Those teams only win 1 or 2 games a year (if that). To me that just doesn't seem like a consistent way to attack because once the other team isn't fooled, you're done.
These are just my impressions of the offense. i could be way off, but it's my gut feeling.
|
|
SetHut
Junior Member
Posts: 314
|
Post by SetHut on Jan 30, 2009 21:36:56 GMT -6
It is DOA in WV. The state rules committee prohibits it based on the deception of the offense and the headache it creates for refs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2009 21:38:03 GMT -6
I'm sure that some states are moving on it regardless. Montana banned it and called it a "travesty" of the rules.
Personally I'd rather see Wing-T banned--that's a tougher offense to defend.
|
|
|
Post by airman on Jan 30, 2009 22:45:40 GMT -6
I just don't like it because it seems like a gimmick offense to me relying more on "tricking people" than out executing people. More a focus on the "wonderful" scheme than executing it well. It's the same type of philosophy of some of the rag-tag teams we play against. They are terrible because they are trying to "out smart" us rather than outplaying us. Those teams only win 1 or 2 games a year (if that). To me that just doesn't seem like a consistent way to attack because once the other team isn't fooled, you're done. These are just my impressions of the offense. i could be way off, but it's my gut feeling. DCs used to say the same thing about the spread offense. it is a gimmic. It will never last. It is a form of tricking the defense. what offense dominates college football and is starting to take hold in high school ball. the spread offense. With all do respect. you still have to excute to win regardless if you are running the A11 or the triple option
|
|
|
Post by airman on Jan 30, 2009 22:48:58 GMT -6
I have yet to figure out why the A 11 generates such dislike. Perhaps it is the fact that the entire offense is based on exploiting a rule. It is "getting over", just like those who exploit loopholes in the tax code, in social services with women having babies for checks, in education where parents get their kids put into special education to get the "umbrella" of protection. Perhaps it was the slam marketing campaign, with the originators consistently giving vague sales/political answers to direct questions. Not according to its creator. Humphries was quoted in a Dec 2008 article as saying “Because A-11 makes everybody eligible, it looks a lot more like soccer" Not according to the responses on this site. Those speaking out against the A-11 have not done so based on its spacing or passing nature. It has been the exploitation issue, as well as the slick marketing and the elimination of certain positions/player types from the game. what is wrong with eliminating players. Arena ball is fast paced with 8 players. we have 9 man football. Heck I would like to see the pros do away with 2 offensive lineman and play 9 man ball. If people wanted to watch defensive standoffs they would be soccer fans. infact it is my position that many high school coaches really are soccer coaches underneath. keep the score low, run the clock and above all do nothing which involves a risk. this is no different then soccer to me.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jan 30, 2009 23:05:21 GMT -6
I just don't like it because it seems like a gimmick offense to me relying more on "tricking people" than out executing people. More a focus on the "wonderful" scheme than executing it well. It's the same type of philosophy of some of the rag-tag teams we play against. They are terrible because they are trying to "out smart" us rather than outplaying us. Those teams only win 1 or 2 games a year (if that). To me that just doesn't seem like a consistent way to attack because once the other team isn't fooled, you're done. These are just my impressions of the offense. i could be way off, but it's my gut feeling. DCs used to say the same thing about the spread offense. it is a gimmic. It will never last. It is a form of tricking the defense. I'm a DC and I've been one for over 20 years and I've never heard anyone say that about the spread.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jan 30, 2009 23:09:14 GMT -6
Perhaps it is the fact that the entire offense is based on exploiting a rule. It is "getting over", just like those who exploit loopholes in the tax code, in social services with women having babies for checks, in education where parents get their kids put into special education to get the "umbrella" of protection. Perhaps it was the slam marketing campaign, with the originators consistently giving vague sales/political answers to direct questions. Not according to its creator. Humphries was quoted in a Dec 2008 article as saying “Because A-11 makes everybody eligible, it looks a lot more like soccer" Not according to the responses on this site. Those speaking out against the A-11 have not done so based on its spacing or passing nature. It has been the exploitation issue, as well as the slick marketing and the elimination of certain positions/player types from the game. what is wrong with eliminating players. Arena ball is fast paced with 8 players. we have 9 man football. Heck I would like to see the pros do away with 2 offensive lineman and play 9 man ball. If people wanted to watch defensive standoffs they would be soccer fans. infact it is my position that many high school coaches really are soccer coaches underneath. keep the score low, run the clock and above all do nothing which involves a risk. this is no different then soccer to me. So go coach arena ball. Oh, yeah, you can't because the league is gone because nobody wanted to watch it. They prefer real football, linemen and all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2009 23:37:53 GMT -6
The thing that gets me about A-11 proponents is that they (I'm talking about Bryan and his sidekick in the ESPN article specifically) think they are doing the game a great favor and saving it by adding this offense. Huh?? What exactly is wrong with the game? Look at the NFL ratings. Heck, college football probably deserves to be one of the "4 Majors" by itself. Apparantly, people like what they are seeing and don't need to be "saved".
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 31, 2009 1:37:09 GMT -6
Perhaps it is the fact that the entire offense is based on exploiting a rule. It is "getting over", just like those who exploit loopholes in the tax code, in social services with women having babies for checks, in education where parents get their kids put into special education to get the "umbrella" of protection. Perhaps it was the slam marketing campaign, with the originators consistently giving vague sales/political answers to direct questions. Not according to its creator. Humphries was quoted in a Dec 2008 article as saying “Because A-11 makes everybody eligible, it looks a lot more like soccer" Not according to the responses on this site. Those speaking out against the A-11 have not done so based on its spacing or passing nature. It has been the exploitation issue, as well as the slick marketing and the elimination of certain positions/player types from the game. what is wrong with eliminating players. Arena ball is fast paced with 8 players. we have 9 man football. Heck I would like to see the pros do away with 2 offensive lineman and play 9 man ball. If people wanted to watch defensive standoffs they would be soccer fans. infact it is my position that many high school coaches really are soccer coaches underneath. keep the score low, run the clock and above all do nothing which involves a risk. this is no different then soccer to me. Coach, your solution is simple. YOu need to start issuing equipment to the Flag football leagues, and then replace flag pulling with tackle. THAT is the sport you want to coach. It is a different sport than the one MOST here seem to want to coach. Nothing wrong with that..but a spade is a spade. You want to coach a different sport... Lennox Lewis never faught Royce Gracie... Boxing didn't morph into MMA...a new sport formed. That is what you want to do..and I wish you the best.
|
|
|
Post by morris on Jan 31, 2009 8:59:00 GMT -6
infact it is my position that many high school coaches really are soccer coaches underneath. keep the score low, run the clock and above all do nothing which involves a risk. this is no different then soccer to me. [/quote] I guess you have never watched good soccer. What most play in the US does not count. It takes advantage of a loop hole. I can not name anything else in the game based around taking advantage of a loop hole like it does. By removing linemen from the game you reduce the running game. So not only are we allowing less kids to play we would be cutting out the RB position to a degree.
|
|
|
Post by justryn2 on Jan 31, 2009 9:08:00 GMT -6
The problem with the A-11, and the reason so many football coaches on this site and elsewhere don't like it, is that it takes advantage of a rules exception for scrimmage kick formations as an every down offense. In other words, in accordance with the rules, anytime a team lines up to run the A-11 they are in scrimmage kick formation. So basically, the A-11 is not an offense; it is just a lot of different fake punt plays.
There is nothing wrong with being creative and using deception to try to gain an advantage. There IS something wrong with lining up in scrimmage kick formation on every offensive play. This approach to the game does in fact, as the wise folks in Montana, West Virginia and North Carolina have determined, make a travesty of the game. I don't see how anyone can maintain that lining up in scrimmage kick formation on every offensive play is good for the game, a creative innovation or anything other than making a mockery of the rules.
|
|
ram7gm
Sophomore Member
Posts: 133
|
Post by ram7gm on Jan 31, 2009 10:59:27 GMT -6
Everyone's scared of change. I think most DCs would prefer to face a high-octane air raid spread offense than the A-11 because at least we know the rules of a more traditional offense... we know who is eligible right away and where they're coming from.
I'll be very curious to see where this goes with the rules committee...
|
|
|
Post by coachweigelt on Jan 31, 2009 11:06:13 GMT -6
I have to agree on the fact that the future Football Offense will not be Wishbone or Wing T etc. because the players get so fast, now a days almost all skill players can run under 4.5 so the game gets faster and faster.
All the Wishbone coaches probably said to a coach who runs the 1 back: "gee coach, you do not have 3 backs in the backfield thats kinda scary...) ;D
What I would like to know is, if Coach Bryan got the FED blessing, is the State of CAL even thinking or discussing about the rulechange or a ban?
Also this might sound dump but please remember I'm from europe, why do you have NCAA & FED Rules anyway? When the kids go along they will have to play under NCAA rules anyway...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2009 11:26:25 GMT -6
They do, but a very, very small percentage of the players move on to NCAA.
|
|