|
Post by bobgoodman on Feb 1, 2009 19:45:46 GMT -6
Modern football has always had 6 players who were eligible and 5 who werent. In its early stages of the game, formations were such that this was easily done by alignment. As the game changed, to preserve this principle, the eligible # rule was put proposed and enacted in nearly all levels of football. Since the forward pass, more time passed before eligible/ineligible numbering than has passed since. Tackle eligible, guard eligible etc. plays (i.e. hiding eligible receivers) were an accepted part of the game for so long, the current numbering rules are no more a principle of the game than is, say, the principle that a runner on the ground is not down unless held by an opponent, or that the rules should at least discourage if not prohibit platoon substitution, or that hands have to be kept close to the blody in blocking. What has been changed once can be changed back. NCAA & Fed widened the goals, then after many years narrowed them back to their former dimensions. After NCAA moved the goals to the end line, NFL returned them to the goal line -- and then after many years back to the end line again. Penalties for certain contact fouls have been differentiated into 5 & 15 yard versions, then re-merged into a single penalty, and in one case differentiated again. So these things can go back & forth multiple times. There's no such thing as "modern" football in the sense of 1-way progress, no principles handed down from on high, just fashion -- at least when you take the long view. Robert in the Bronx
|
|
|
Post by dolomite on Feb 1, 2009 19:52:18 GMT -6
Modern football has always had 6 players who were eligible and 5 who werent. In its early stages of the game, formations were such that this was easily done by alignment. As the game changed, to preserve this principle, the eligible # rule was put proposed and enacted in nearly all levels of football. Since the forward pass, more time passed before eligible/ineligible numbering than has passed since. Tackle eligible, guard eligible etc. plays (i.e. hiding eligible receivers) were an accepted part of the game for so long, the current numbering rules are no more a principle of the game than is, say, the principle that a runner on the ground is not down unless held by an opponent, or that the rules should at least discourage if not prohibit platoon substitution, or that hands have to be kept close to the blody in blocking. What has been changed once can be changed back. NCAA & Fed widened the goals, then after many years narrowed them back to their former dimensions. After NCAA moved the goals to the end line, NFL returned them to the goal line -- and then after many years back to the end line again. Penalties for certain contact fouls have been differentiated into 5 & 15 yard versions, then re-merged into a single penalty, and in one case differentiated again. So these things can go back & forth multiple times. There's no such thing as "modern" football in the sense of 1-way progress, no principles handed down from on high, just fashion -- at least when you take the long view. Robert in the Bronx Coach, With all due respect, were talking about an entire offense predicated on a LOOP HOLE, which it's main purpose is to gain an unfair advantage over the defense. I don't believe anything you alluded to in your post is equal to the a-11 offense. JMHO
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Feb 1, 2009 20:47:30 GMT -6
Modern football has always had 6 players who were eligible and 5 who werent. In its early stages of the game, formations were such that this was easily done by alignment. As the game changed, to preserve this principle, the eligible # rule was put proposed and enacted in nearly all levels of football. Since the forward pass, more time passed before eligible/ineligible numbering than has passed since. Tackle eligible, guard eligible etc. plays (i.e. hiding eligible receivers) were an accepted part of the game for so long, the current numbering rules are no more a principle of the game than is, say, the principle that a runner on the ground is not down unless held by an opponent, or that the rules should at least discourage if not prohibit platoon substitution, or that hands have to be kept close to the blody in blocking. What has been changed once can be changed back. NCAA & Fed widened the goals, then after many years narrowed them back to their former dimensions. After NCAA moved the goals to the end line, NFL returned them to the goal line -- and then after many years back to the end line again. Penalties for certain contact fouls have been differentiated into 5 & 15 yard versions, then re-merged into a single penalty, and in one case differentiated again. So these things can go back & forth multiple times. There's no such thing as "modern" football in the sense of 1-way progress, no principles handed down from on high, just fashion -- at least when you take the long view. Robert in the Bronx I understand what you are saying that rules are subjective, I agree. I just don't think that a team should be able ignore the numbering rules just because the qb is 7 yards deep. Either fix the loophole or have no numbering issues for anyone no matter the depth of the qb. At least that is fair to all.
|
|
|
Post by dolomite on Feb 1, 2009 21:19:42 GMT -6
"I understand what you are saying that rules are subjective, I agree."-silkyice
Theres nothing subjective about the rule that A-11 goons take advantage of. It is meant for a scrimmage kick formation. Its an equalizer to the punting team so they may also have their top athletes on the field against a return team. There is nothing subjective about it. It's a joke and I have no respect for coaches that use loopholes in rules to gain an advantage against an opposing team, especially when that opposing team is a high school i.e. kids.... Its a joke the A11 will burn just like Arizona did tonight.... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Iam personally seeing to it. There are somethings in the works, I just can't talk about it at this time. Believe me, those of us that oppose this joke are represented and were taking action soon. Keep your eyes open.. ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Feb 1, 2009 21:21:55 GMT -6
I don't want to offend anyone here, but the idea of banning the offense simply because it takes advantage of the rules is lame. Whether you like them or not, Humphries and Bryant are bright guys who recognized a possibility and ran with it. Should we hold it against people for being smart, outside the box thinkers who understand the potential of language. What they exploited was not a loophole, but rather a lack. Just because they recognized that something was not forbidden in the rule book and took advantage of it does that mean that they have changed the rules of the game or that they are not playing by the rules? Please. They are indeed playing by the rules. When we yap and scream for the rules to be changed we sound increasingly medieval. When we scream for a rule change it sounds as if we are against anybody who builds a better mousetrap. We are in essence saying that you have to play the way we do in order to be a member of our club. Not only does that sound exclusionist, but down right tribal. The A-11 is based upon an interpretation of the rules; in this regard it is similar to how justices interpret the constituion. What they A-11 creators identified was portion of the text that was open to interpretation. That's actually pretty smart and should not be ridiculed and condemned, but actually celebrated. Rulebooks are like any other text - they are subject to interpretation. I wholeheartedly disagree with everything but your final statement, that texts are subject to interpretation. Now, at the outset, I want to destroy a straw man. We all know that the A-11 is technically legal under Fed rules. That's fine. Put the QB 7 yards back and you can do this. That's irrelevant. The question is what to do. Rules, like laws, can be revised periodically, in an open forum. And that's what is being discussed here. So the question is whether to allow the use of the exception to be expanded beyond its initial purpose. We all must admit that that is what Bryan and Humphries are doing. Let's look at the overall scheme. There is a rule setting jersey # eligibility restrictions: five guys must all be ineligible on every play. The fat boys. That was designed to eliminate tackle eligible plays Bear Bryant and others were using. Flash forward a few years, and teams complained that on punt plays, they couldn't get enough fast kids on the field to cover them; they had to have five of their fat boys, and thus were giving up punt returns for touchdowns. Thus, the scrimmage kick exception. Now, we have an everyday offense built around the loophole. Ignore the fat kids who might get excluded, ignore even the difficulty on the refs. Why is this a rational way to set up your rules? Either you have to have 5 ineligible jerseys, or, if you put your QB in the shotgun 7 yards, it's a free for all -- go nuts. If you were creating the system, is that the one you'd create? You're a pretty rational guy; I don't think so. In other words, this is an irrational approach to the game to do it through these backdoor means. It's not amoral, it's not intrinsically wrong, it's merely irrational. And what is being debated is not interpreting the rules: as they stand, they allow it, but going forward they might be changed not to. We change the rules in both football and society all the time. It's a legislative, not interpretive/judicial function. When Justices interpret the constitution -- even when they do it in a way that some might criticize as activist -- it is an eye to either the intent of the rulemakers or the purpose that the rule was put in place for. The A-11 as an application of the scrimmage kick exception simply must fail both tests: it is the creating of an entire offense out of whole cloth in reliance on an exception designed to get a faster kid or two on the field for punts. That's all. Your analogy to the Supreme Court Justices is inapposite anyway; what is going on now is legislative, not judicial and interpretive. The rules committee can do whatever it wants. It can make the football field 150 yards and touchdowns with 11 1/2 points. That's rulemaking, not interpretation. Unless you can make a process argument that what they are doing is illegitimate, then fine. But I've yet to see that. My point all along has been, if you want the A-11, you should talk about the eligibility restrictions generally, not this exception. I just find it telling that Bryan and Humphries would rather states *secede* from the Fed rules (and college, etc) than address the issue head on. Can you think of any reason why they don't want to have this debate? Other than the fact that it is a loser? How can this possibly be a better way than talking about the eligibility restrictions generally? The only other thing I can think of is they want a monopoly on the advantages they perceive. If you do away with the eligibility rules, there's not just the A-11, it's wide open for tackle eligibles, etc. Back to all the reasons coaches didn't want it (i.e. they were mad at Bear Bryant). But again, can you tell me why they never argue this?
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Feb 1, 2009 21:28:04 GMT -6
As a final note, I have no confirmation either, but the word on the street seems to be that the A-11 is gone, one way or another.
Kurt and Steve have floated a paper about seceding from the states (but also the college rules).
Finally, to whoever floated the idea earlier about Kurt suing the Fed or whoever to run their offense, I have no idea what the claim would be, or the legal authority would be to bring it under. I'm certain no federal law supports the idea. Don't let propaganda about our litigious society scare you to the point where you think judges will force you to deal with the A-11.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Feb 1, 2009 22:08:23 GMT -6
As a final note, I have no confirmation either, but the word on the street seems to be that the A-11 is gone, one way or another. Kurt and Steve have floated a paper about seceding from the states (but also the college rules). Finally, to whoever floated the idea earlier about Kurt suing the Fed or whoever to run their offense, I have no idea what the claim would be, or the legal authority would be to bring it under. I'm certain no federal law supports the idea. Don't let propaganda about our litigious society scare you to the point where you think judges will force you to deal with the A-11. Chris - I brought up the concept of Kurt bringing a lawsuit. Not because it would have any merit, but simply because it would not surprise me in the least if he did. The thing is, Kurt and Humphries are so tied to this thing now...it really is who they are....they are these two tortured geniuses railing against all of the trogladyte football coaches who don't appreciate "innovation" and "forward thinking" and the "future" of football. So, whether a lawsuit has merit or not, I just don't see Kurt going away quietly. He will fight this thing to the bitter end. The little kingdom he created, with himself as emperor, seems to be crumbling around him and I just don't think he will willingly go back to being just a "normal" coach who isn't an Internet celebrity and ESPN darling.
|
|
|
Post by coachinghopeful on Feb 1, 2009 22:21:45 GMT -6
I don't want to offend anyone here, but the idea of banning the offense simply because it takes advantage of the rules is lame. Whether you like them or not, Humphries and Bryant are bright guys who recognized a possibility and ran with it. Should we hold it against people for being smart, outside the box thinkers who understand the potential of language. What they exploited was not a loophole, but rather a lack. Just because they recognized that something was not forbidden in the rule book and took advantage of it does that mean that they have changed the rules of the game or that they are not playing by the rules? Please. They are indeed playing by the rules. When we yap and scream for the rules to be changed we sound increasingly medieval. When we scream for a rule change it sounds as if we are against anybody who builds a better mousetrap. We are in essence saying that you have to play the way we do in order to be a member of our club. Not only does that sound exclusionist, but down right tribal. The A-11 is based upon an interpretation of the rules; in this regard it is similar to how justices interpret the constituion. What they A-11 creators identified was portion of the text that was open to interpretation. That's actually pretty smart and should not be ridiculed and condemned, but actually celebrated. Rulebooks are like any other text - they are subject to interpretation. I wholeheartedly disagree with everything but your final statement, that texts are subject to interpretation. Now, at the outset, I want to destroy a straw man. We all know that the A-11 is technically legal under Fed rules. That's fine. Put the QB 7 yards back and you can do this. That's irrelevant. The question is what to do. Rules, like laws, can be revised periodically, in an open forum. And that's what is being discussed here. So the question is whether to allow the use of the exception to be expanded beyond its initial purpose. We all must admit that that is what Bryan and Humphries are doing. Let's look at the overall scheme. There is a rule setting jersey # eligibility restrictions: five guys must all be ineligible on every play. The fat boys. That was designed to eliminate tackle eligible plays Bear Bryant and others were using. Flash forward a few years, and teams complained that on punt plays, they couldn't get enough fast kids on the field to cover them; they had to have five of their fat boys, and thus were giving up punt returns for touchdowns. Thus, the scrimmage kick exception. Now, we have an everyday offense built around the loophole. Ignore the fat kids who might get excluded, ignore even the difficulty on the refs. Why is this a rational way to set up your rules? Either you have to have 5 ineligible jerseys, or, if you put your QB in the shotgun 7 yards, it's a free for all -- go nuts. If you were creating the system, is that the one you'd create? You're a pretty rational guy; I don't think so. In other words, this is an irrational approach to the game to do it through these backdoor means. It's not amoral, it's not intrinsically wrong, it's merely irrational. And what is being debated is not interpreting the rules: as they stand, they allow it, but going forward they might be changed not to. We change the rules in both football and society all the time. It's a legislative, not interpretive/judicial function. When Justices interpret the constitution -- even when they do it in a way that some might criticize as activist -- it is an eye to either the intent of the rulemakers or the purpose that the rule was put in place for. The A-11 as an application of the scrimmage kick exception simply must fail both tests: it is the creating of an entire offense out of whole cloth in reliance on an exception designed to get a faster kid or two on the field for punts. That's all. Your analogy to the Supreme Court Justices is inapposite anyway; what is going on now is legislative, not judicial and interpretive. The rules committee can do whatever it wants. It can make the football field 150 yards and touchdowns with 11 1/2 points. That's rulemaking, not interpretation. Unless you can make a process argument that what they are doing is illegitimate, then fine. But I've yet to see that. My point all along has been, if you want the A-11, you should talk about the eligibility restrictions generally, not this exception. I just find it telling that Bryan and Humphries would rather states *secede* from the Fed rules (and college, etc) than address the issue head on. Can you think of any reason why they don't want to have this debate? Other than the fact that it is a loser? How can this possibly be a better way than talking about the eligibility restrictions generally? The only other thing I can think of is they want a monopoly on the advantages they perceive. If you do away with the eligibility rules, there's not just the A-11, it's wide open for tackle eligibles, etc. Back to all the reasons coaches didn't want it (i.e. they were mad at Bear Bryant). But again, can you tell me why they never argue this? Great post spreadattack! That's the position I was talking about earlier. Either you should have the eligible/ineligible numbers or you shouldn't. It's stupid that you have to have the 5 ineligible numbers *unless your QB is in the shotgun at least 7 yards deep.* Seriously guys, WTF sense does that make? If the A-11 guys would frame their argument this way, I, and many coaches here, would be much more sympathetic to their cause. Personally, I'd like to see all the numbers restrictions struck down. What exactly IS wrong with tackle and even guard eligible plays in unbalanced situations, besides that someone may be more clever than you in how they use them? The thing is, if you're going to have those rules on the books, at least make them apply to everyone. Otherwise, the Fed is granting a de facto rules bias towards shotgun offenses over under-center and run heavy offenses who would probably stand to benefit the most from allowing the tackle and guard eligible plays again. Except in cases where safety is involved, should the Fed really even be put in charge of actively promoting specific offensive/defensive philosophies over others? Bryan and Humphries' self importance and marketing aside, this really is what the issue boils down to. Thanks for laying it out so eloquently, spreadattack.
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Feb 1, 2009 22:37:26 GMT -6
"I understand what you are saying that rules are subjective, I agree."-silkyice Theres nothing subjective about the rule that A-11 goons take advantage of. It is meant for a scrimmage kick formation. Its an equalizer to the punting team so they may also have their top athletes on the field against a return team. There is nothing subjective about it. It's a joke and I have no respect for coaches that use loopholes in rules to gain an advantage against an opposing team, especially when that opposing team is a high school i.e. kids.... Its a joke the A11 will burn just like Arizona did tonight.... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Iam personally seeing to it. There are somethings in the works, I just can't talk about it at this time. Believe me, those of us that oppose this joke are represented and were taking action soon. Keep your eyes open.. ;D ;D ;D ;D Hill Larry Us... That's some funny stuff there!
|
|
|
Post by kurtbryan on Feb 2, 2009 0:01:21 GMT -6
Coaches: Appreciate the candor about the various possibilites regarding the future of football, and to the handful of guys who like to name-call, whew boy, does that make you look very weak. And, the reason I can't comment for now on other items being presented to us by these groups, I gave my word and of course signed the appropriate documents covering that - standard. More importantly, it is critical to understand, there are a lot more small schools to mid-size schools in America that have made it clear to us they want to be able to Retain the right to use A-11 on any down if they desire. And, if the NFHS attempts to ban it. Then YES, there are several viable options being presented to us for Any team wanting to use the offense on 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th down. I respect the fact some coaches hate one offense, and love another, and so on. More importantly, it is a Free country (Thank God), and if a school, group of schools, or segment of schools decide it is better for them to Retain the Ability to use the A-11 if they want to, then good for them. If not, then good for them too. There is plenty of room in America for more than one style or brand of football. * Great 4th quarter tonight, too bad the Cards lost. Best of luck to you guys in everything you do. KB
|
|
|
Post by tog on Feb 2, 2009 0:20:23 GMT -6
Coaches: Appreciate the candor about the various possibilites regarding the future of football, and to the handful of guys who like to name-call, whew boy, does that make you look very weak. And, the reason I can't comment for now on other items being presented to us by these groups, I gave my word and of course signed the appropriate documents covering that - standard. More importantly, it is critical to understand, there are a lot more small schools to mid-size schools in America that have made it clear to us they want to be able to Retain the right to use A-11 on any down if they desire. And, if the NFHS attempts to ban it. Then YES, there are several viable options being presented to us for Any team wanting to use the offense on 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th down. I respect the fact some coaches hate one offense, and love another, and so on. More importantly, it is a Free country (Thank God), and if a school, group of schools, or segment of schools decide it is better for them to Retain the Ability to use the A-11 if they want to, then good for them. If not, then good for them too. There is plenty of room in America for more than one style or brand of football. * Great 4th quarter tonight, too bad the Cards lost. Best of luck to you guys in everything you do. KB who is name calling? i would hope that anyone that is in a league that says a11 is illegal would not schedule someone that uses it
|
|
|
Post by kurtbryan on Feb 2, 2009 0:27:58 GMT -6
Actually Tog: One of the major factors presented to us by more than one group around the country is exactly that, for many years teams either in the same state (that play under varied rules) and/or two teams playing each other from different states that have varied rules Do play each other. So Yes, that has been happening for years and years, and to be honest, it is rather interesting to hear what they are saying, etc. And so again, in just this one item, teams competing vs. each other even though their league, section or state has differing rules, has been happening for many years. The precedent has already been established. Take Care, KB
|
|
|
Post by coachbdud on Feb 2, 2009 1:05:22 GMT -6
but still... what do you do if NFHS bans it, or alters the rule to look more like the NCAA rule so you can not use it every down
|
|
|
Post by coachinghopeful on Feb 2, 2009 1:21:50 GMT -6
Actually Tog: One of the major factors presented to us by more than one group around the country is exactly that, for many years teams either in the same state (that play under varied rules) and/or two teams playing each other from different states that have varied rules Do play each other. So Yes, that has been happening for years and years, and to be honest, it is rather interesting to hear what they are saying, etc. And so again, in just this one item, teams competing vs. each other even though their league, section or state has differing rules, has been happening for many years. The precedent has already been established. Take Care, KB Yes, teams from other states and leagues do play each other, but before the game everyone knows which set applies. If a team who runs the A-11 is silly enough to schedule a game against a team from a state where the A-11 is illegal, and finds that they are obligated by the agreement to play by the opposing team's rules, then that's their fault. If a team who believes the A-11 should be outlawed schedules this game and plays against it, then they'd better be ready to defend it too. I don't see your point here. Are you really looking at getting enough teams to adopt the A-11 that they can form their own leagues and classifications just for the sake of running the A-11? What happens when the coach leaves and the new one wants to run something else? What happens in terms of state championships, rivalries, travel, etc? No offense, Coach Bryan, but do you really see this as a practical option? If you create seperate leagues just for one offensive strategy, aren't you basically creating a different sport just to run that one offense? Yes, there are 6 man, 7 man, 8 man, and flag leagues out there, but the game in those situations is fundamentally different, just as Canadian football is different from the NFL and Arena rules. It's not practical for teams from those leagues to play each other because the rules and schemes involved are just not compatible. They really are playing 2 different "sub-sports." Not that there's anything wrong with that, but how many coaches/ADs out there are really so passionate about your ideas, Coach Bryan, that it would even be feesible to create even one league just for them? Actually, I think I can see a way for you to go without violating any of the current rules, whether we're talkinga bout Fed, NCAA, or NFL. It's not a radical stroke of genius, but I'm going to keep it quiet. Until I can get my own books and DVDs out on it, that is Also, on the Superbowl... am I the only non-Cardinals fan who thinks the game was rigged?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 2, 2009 1:49:27 GMT -6
Coaches: And, the reason I can't comment for now on other items being presented to us by these groups, I gave my word and of course signed the appropriate documents covering that - standard. May I ask, why is this "standard"? What type of items could possibly require some type of non-disclosure agreement? Kurt, this has been your MO for the past year, always throwing out the tease and the "more to come soon" marketing phrases. Coach, with all due respect, this is such a crock. First, there is NO "right". Just poor word choice on your part. What you mean to say is that they want to maintain the ability to exploit a loophole created by specific wording in the rules regarding the depth of person receiving the snap. Regardless, please clarify why you keep bringing up this "small to mid size school market." I find it hard to believe that as a$$-backwards as we are here in Louisiana in so many endeavors, we are the only state that has an equitable division between enrollments. meaning, our "small to mid size schools" play OTHER small to mid size schools. Not quite sure why some type of magic bullet is needed for that. So perhaps you should focus your efforts on THAT, rather than on something that is SO OBVIOUSLY just an exploitation. Other than just running the BYU formation, wouldn't any other option essentially be playing a different sport? I mean, lets face it Kurt, that is what you are looking to do. To usher in a NEW SPORT. Which is fine, just call a spade a spade. I don't quite see what you are going with here. What if a group wanted to retain the right to drive 100mph, even though the legislation has decided to limit it? Good for those people? Or if a group wants to avoid taxes? Again, If a group of schools wants to continue using this type of system, great. Just realize it is a DIFFERENT (similar, but different) sport. Just like MMA vs boxing. KURT, in all of your marketing and positions, you have never--NOT ONCE addressed the central issue that spreadattack has constantly questioned. Why aren't you arguing for the removal of eligibility numbers? How can you possibly defend the logic that the depth of the QB has anything to do with the potential eligibility of players?
|
|
|
Post by tog on Feb 2, 2009 8:48:05 GMT -6
Actually Tog: One of the major factors presented to us by more than one group around the country is exactly that, for many years teams either in the same state (that play under varied rules) and/or two teams playing each other from different states that have varied rules Do play each other. So Yes, that has been happening for years and years, and to be honest, it is rather interesting to hear what they are saying, etc. And so again, in just this one item, teams competing vs. each other even though their league, section or state has differing rules, has been happening for many years. The precedent has already been established. Take Care, KB this doesn't mean it is right I will take Texas for example. When the UIL put two private schools in with the Publics, well fine and dandy. The people they were put in a district with pretty much had to play them. EVERYONE ELSE should not have scheduled them for non district games. That would have made it tough on em to get going.
|
|
|
Post by ucbears90 on Feb 2, 2009 11:30:32 GMT -6
I have two great running backs, I have noticed that there is a loophole in the rules in that it doesn't say that there can only be one ball in play at once, I am breaking away and forming a new league of other schools with two great backs. We will not be denied the RIGHT of having the defense have to tackle both of our great players on every play. I can't talk any further. Any team with two great QB's and Receivers are also eligible to join or league.
We will also be playing with 22 players on offense, but one set of 11 has to stand still on the play. The player raises his hand 2 seconds before the snap so you know who is standing still and who not to defend. Its really easy to recognize, officials say they have no problem
|
|
|
Post by ucbears90 on Feb 2, 2009 11:34:30 GMT -6
There is also a minimum but no maximum on the size of pads you can wear, we are going to swaddle our defenders in enough pads to create a sideline to sideline wall that is 10 ft high, there is no rule against it. Who cares if it is not in the "spirit" of the game, you old fuddy duddys just hate innovators.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Feb 2, 2009 11:51:18 GMT -6
There is also a minimum but no maximum on the size of pads you can wear, we are going to swaddle our defenders in enough pads to create a sideline to sideline wall that is 10 ft high, there is no rule against it. Who cares if it is not in the "spirit" of the game, you old fuddy duddys just hate innovators. this would be funny giant styrofoam pads that give everyone a 12 foot wingspan
|
|
|
Post by coach4life on Feb 2, 2009 11:54:53 GMT -6
Maybe there is a simple solution - if you go into punt formation and declare your intention to punt you are free to put whatever numbers you want where ever you want. If you fake the punt, that's okay, but if you do it more than (some number, how many times does a team fake a punt in a regular game? Rarely, so maybe one or two) times you get an unsportsmanlike on the coach. If you do not declare the punt, 5 ineligible applies. In either case hitting the center with his head down when a snap receiver is at 7 or more remains a roughing call, so if you want to control a nose who is killing your center that option is still available.
The net effect would be to limit the A-11 concept to the x number of fake punts allowed, but you could use it at a key moment. Fair? I suppose A-11 supporters would argue it is not, but there are other creative ways (Polecat and its variants for example) to stress defenses with alignments and you could still use it at a key moment in the game.
If the A-11 were to become the next big leap in the spread it will reduce opportunities for the real heros of the game, namely the big dawgs up front on the O-line. High school football should be available for all willing to pay the price, not just the fastest and most athletic.
|
|
|
Post by tothehouse on Feb 2, 2009 12:53:46 GMT -6
Could someone file a lawsuit saying that by running the A-11 offense you are discriminating against bigger, slower, lineman types? I'm just asking...since there is talk of lawsuits.
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on Feb 2, 2009 13:33:12 GMT -6
I know a lot of people have been commenting on how this offense is a trick/gimmick/exploit of rules and I do to a point agree with them on that issue. It is something based on a loophole and now that loop hole is looking like it will be closed and I agree with that. I just feel that it's not in the best interest of the game.
Now the real reason I don't like this offense is that it reminds me of all the posts on here that start "what offense should I run with no talent..." "what should I do with no linemen..." Some will throw this offense or that offense out there. Then some one makes the point I agree with most, run what you know and tweek it and develop your young players and coach your butt off. That is why I don't care for this A-11, it seems like the easy way out instead of putting time in and developing players. Seems like a quick fix. I coach at a small school, we have about 50 9-12 in the program so we are always searching for a kid to play here or there or moving kids to different positions. But we make do and coach what we know and try and develop our young guys. I just feel like this whole thing is yeah we don't need to develop linemen we can just throw all our skill kids out there and run around and trick the D. It just doesn't sit right with me, seems to take away from the coaching/developing aspect of the game. But thats just my take.
|
|
|
Post by tog on Feb 2, 2009 13:35:36 GMT -6
There is also a minimum but no maximum on the size of pads you can wear, we are going to swaddle our defenders in enough pads to create a sideline to sideline wall that is 10 ft high, there is no rule against it. Who cares if it is not in the "spirit" of the game, you old fuddy duddys just hate innovators. love it let's all dress up like goalies in hockey and just form a red rover chain we all have the right to have our defense do that
|
|
|
Post by tog on Feb 2, 2009 13:36:19 GMT -6
i think it should be mandatory that all defensive linemen wear roller skates
next
|
|
|
Post by acbrits08 on Feb 2, 2009 13:53:20 GMT -6
Football is no longer about lining up and knocking somebody's block off. That's a good thing. False.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Feb 2, 2009 14:10:00 GMT -6
Football is no longer about lining up and knocking somebody's block off. That's a good thing. False. I don't know if it was ever TOTALLY about that, but that is certainly a huge part of it from what I see. I don't care what kind of offense you run. You talk to the best spread gun guys in the country and they will tell you that being PHYSICAL still wins football games. The only teams that don't subscribe to this approach are those who can't because they haven't put the time in and paid the price to properly DEVELOP their players as FOOTBALL players. Making up fancy-pants schemes is easy and fun. Developing young men to be strong, tough, and fearless is hard and requires tremendous patience and skill. As a coach, I'd much rather be remembered for the toughness and heart of my kids than the pure skill of my kids. I think there are others who would rather take the path of least resistance and out x-and-o someone rather than out-tough and out-heart someone. Nothing worthwhile comes easy, fella. That's just my take on that.
|
|
|
Post by tog on Feb 2, 2009 14:31:56 GMT -6
Football is no longer about lining up and knocking somebody's block off. That's a good thing. False. i disagree here too hemlock 1. i think it still is about who can knock the other guy's block off 2. and that is a good thing--we as a society need more competition---i can't think of a better way to compete than to have me see if i can block you--or if you can tackle me
|
|
|
Post by coachinghopeful on Feb 2, 2009 15:09:40 GMT -6
There is also a minimum but no maximum on the size of pads you can wear, we are going to swaddle our defenders in enough pads to create a sideline to sideline wall that is 10 ft high, there is no rule against it. Who cares if it is not in the "spirit" of the game, you old fuddy duddys just hate innovators. I love this idea. My new DVD series on it will be coming out shortly. For just $199.99 you too can find out all the secret techniques of how we incorporate 12' interlocking shoulderpads to create an impenetrable wall of defenders. I call it the W-11. Let's play Red Rover, everybody!
|
|
yoda1
Sophomore Member
Posts: 216
|
Post by yoda1 on Feb 2, 2009 15:40:45 GMT -6
Big question once the loophole is closed, all the suckers who bought those DVD's are going to want some money back. Good Luck with that!
I predict plenty of law suits to keep the A-11 boys busy for the next few years.
Also if they make a new federation then you can just decide to not play them, and states could decide to ban them from championships etc... GOOD BYE A-11
|
|
|
Post by RENO6 on Feb 2, 2009 15:57:21 GMT -6
1) Possible loop holes being exploited: Shovel Pass, Triple Option, Screens, Fubble ruskies, hook and ladders, onside kicks, Reverses, 3-3 stack, teaching lineman to hold and get away with it, teaching Dbs how to use their hands and not get caught, etc..
2) Football has been around for a long time and the ineligible number rule was started in the early 1960s and it wasn't in highschool untill the late 1970s.
|
|