Post by John Knight on Feb 28, 2009 9:37:20 GMT -6
Check this out. This is being sent out to coaches all around the country!
Dual Petition for Your Own State Association and the NFHS
Introduction:
Dear Football Coaches and School Administrators,
* 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.
1. You can use the exact wording of the Dual Petition to help your school.
2. Simply cut and paste the Text of these Petitions into a new document of your choosing.
3. Delete our State Association's Name and Insert your Own State Association info.
4. Delete our Administrator's Info, and then insert your Own Administrative info.
5. Once you do that, convert your Dual Petition into the format of your choice. Then, contact your Own State Association to see if Your State has a Specific Form or Procedure to follow to officially submit your Petition. Also for your records, request copies of your own State Association’s communication with the NFHS regarding these issues.
6. Attach your Dual Petition to the Official Paperwork required by your State Association & send it via Certified Mail to your State Association’s Executive Director, and State Rules Interpreter.
7. And, send copies via Certified Mail to NFHS headquarters in Indianapolis, IN.
8. Once your own Dual Petition has been enacted, inform your local Media outlets of your Petition drive: Newspapers, Radio and Television. Email them copies of your Dual Petition after you have completed Steps # 1- 7 listed above.
9. After submitting your Dual Petition to your State Association and NFHS, please keep us posted via email, and also let us know about the status of your Dual Petition.
10. Let’s keep working together with our State Associations and the NFHS so everybody wins.
"One of the major issues the NFHS & CIF owes to every student-athlete playing tackle football is to study the incredible safety aspect the A-11 Offense has brought to high school football, and the documented fact that the A-11 helps to reduce major injuries because the players are super spread out across the field of play. In two years of using the A-11, Piedmont players have not suffered a catastrophic injury, and most of the other A-11 teams nationwide have reported similar results. This great discovery about that amazing fact should cause the CIF to act immediately to implement a statewide study as detailed in our Dual Petition. The state would be well-served to look at the reduced injury rate ASAP." Steve Humphries (Co-creator A-11 Offense)
Petition For CIF to Implement a Three-Year Experiment Using Existing NFHS Guidelines
February 25, 2009 (Petition A-11 – a)
In an effort to reach an honorable compromise between small to mid-size schools participating in 11-man tackle football in the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) and the National Federation of High Schools (NFHS), please review the following proposed “Experiment” as per the previously established NFHS experimental guidelines. This “Experiment” would enable both groups time to conduct due diligence & track the effects of this “Experiment” over a three-year period, encompassing the football seasons of 2009, 2010 and 2011.
Reasoning:
In many cases, small to mid-size schools participating in 11-man tackle football do not have nearly as many, or even enough traditional Offensive Lineman to effectively compete on the field of play – compared to the larger enrollment schools & heavily stocked private schools they play that usually have a much larger quantity of Offensive Lineman found at their schools, even though both groups of schools are often assigned to the exact same State classification. For the student-athletes, safety is always the top priority, after that comes competitive equity. Traditionally Offensive Lineman wear a jersey numbered (#50 – 79). The primary reason an offense like the A-11 was conceived, had to do with the overall consistent shortage of traditional Offensive Lineman found within the enrollment of our student body. It is a simple fact.
* The January 2009 NFHS rules change (7-2-5-b) scheduled to take effect in the 2009 football season states that on 1st, 2nd and 3rd down, an Offensive team must have at least Four players wearing jersey number (#50 – 79) on the Line of Scrimmage when the football is snapped. Except on 4th down, when the jersey numbering requirement is essentially waived.
Experiment Request for our State Association & the NFHS to Support:
Please support an “Experiment” for NFHS rule (7-2-5-b) and allow no less than THREE Offensive players wearing jersey number (#50-79) on the Line of Scrimmage when the football is snapped. Except on 4th down, when the jersey numbering requirement is essentially waived.
Implementing this “Experiment” will not change any other rule. Most importantly, it will enable any school; most assuredly the small to mid-size schools an even safer and more flexible approach in the application of their student-athlete personnel as they compete on the field of play.
Some criteria that could be studied by our State & NFHS are on the next page of this Petition.
Sincerely,
Randall Booker, Principal
Piedmont High School
800 Magnolia Ave. Piedmont, CA 94611
Items for the CIF and NFHS to Review During a Three-Year Experiment
(Petition A-11 – a) Continued
Please support an “Experiment” for NFHS rule (7-2-5-b) and allow no less than THREE Offensive players wearing jersey number (#50-79) on the Line of Scrimmage when the football is snapped. Except on 4th down, when the jersey numbering requirement is essentially waived.
The three-year “Experiment” would commence in 2009 and continue through the 2011 football season. Our State and the NFHS would review the effects regarding the items listed below by teams using various styles of offense predicated on having no less than THREE Offensive players wearing jersey number (#50-79) on the Line of Scrimmage when the football is snapped. Except on 4th down, when the jersey numbering requirement is essentially waived.
This could lead to our State and/or the NFHS permanently allowing the proposed rules of this “Experiment”, abolishing it, or creating a new Sub-Federation within the framework of our State and the NFHS, for teams wanting to utilize the rules put forth in this “Experiment.”
Some of the items for review by our State and the NFHS:
• Does it improve the overall Safety of the student-athletes?
• Are the games able to be properly officiated?
• Increased or decreased participation by the student-athletes?
• Testimonials from student-athletes?
• Testimonials from Officials who have actually worked the games?
• Testimonials from Coaches and Administrators?
• Is it a travesty of the game?
• Does it cause harm to the defense and lead to inequity on the field of play?
• Does it cause harm to the offense and lead to inequity on the field of play?
• Overall won-loss records of teams using it?
• Does it increase diversity in terms of student-athlete participation?
• Does it increase attendance at football games and generate excitement?
• Does it help promote positive school and community relations?
• Does it make the game fun for the student-athletes actually playing the game?
• Does it give small to mid-size schools a better chance of competing vs. larger schools and/or the private schools they play by their pre-assigned state classification?
Petition For the CIF to Forgo Some 2009 NFHS Rule Changes For Three-Years
February 25, 2009 (Petition A-11 – b)
The CIF can elect to support the mostly small to mid-size schools that would benefit by implementing the proposed three-year “Experiment” detailed in Petition (A-11 – a) of this Dual Petition. Or, as an alternative plan, we are Petitioning our State to forgo a couple of the 2009 NFHS rule changes scheduled for the 2009 football season. Such as, not implementing the 2009 NFHS rules change (7-2-5-b) stating at least Four players wearing jersey number (#50 – 79) must be on the Line of Scrimmage at the snap of the football on 1st, 2nd and 3rd downs. Except for on 4th down when the jersey (#50 –79) numbering requirement is essentially waived. Secondly, we are asking our State to not institute the 2009 NFHS rules change regarding the definition of a Scrimmage Kick Formation rules (2-14-2) & (7-2-5-b) and the numbering Exception.
Reasoning:
Since 1982 (twenty-seven seasons), 11-man tackle football teams in our State have competed using the existing definition of a Scrimmage Kick Formation - allowing for systems like the A-11 Offense or a Hybrid of it to operate on any down. These new “different” offenses can help small to mid-size schools that often do not have enough traditional Offensive Lineman – compared to most of the larger enrollment schools or heavily stocked private schools they must play due to their assigned State classification. Starting in the 2007, teams using the A-11 Offense began competing against Non-A-11 teams without incident & with equitable results. More importantly, the overwhelming majority of the officials actually managing A-11 games in the state have reported the games can be officiated properly. Sam Moriana, Head of the Football Officials in the East Bay of California, is a 50-year officiating veteran. His officiating crews have managed more games involving the A-11 Offense than any other group of officials in the nation in 2007 & 2008.
“Any good high school official who is competent would have no problem officiating a game showcasing the A-11 scheme. It’s really no big deal. We’ve had no complaints from any officials whatsoever that have refereed their games.” Sam Moriana.
Precedent Established by the CIF, Texas, Massachusetts and Other States:
Our State & any State in the Union is not bound to follow NFHS rules. Example, the CIF gave up its seat on the NFHS Basketball Rules Committee by exercising its authority to act contrary to the NFHS position of not recognizing the use of a Shot Clock in boys & girls high school basketball games. To make the basketball games more exciting & equitable for each school in the State, the CIF implemented the use of a Shot Clock - thereby not recognizing the “no clock” rule of the NFHS. The independent action by the CIF established a precedent relative to the NFHS and its actual power. It’s clear any State Association can equitably decide to allow a style of football like the A-11 Offense or a Hybrid of it to be studied in their State over Three years, to examine the benefits of these “different” systems. Equally important, it would demonstrate a consistent effort by the CIF & any State, to remain flexible regarding the use of innovation in sports for the benefit of every school in their State. Other examples include Texas & Massachusetts, State members of the NFHS, but allowed to use modified NCAA rules to govern high school football. In California, the Oakland Athletic League & San Francisco Academic Athletic Association are members of the CIF & NFHS, but they are allowed to operate independently of the State Playoff systems.
Sincerely,
Randall Booker, Principal
Piedmont High School
800 Magnolia Ave. Piedmont, CA 94611
Petition For the CIF to Forgo Some 2009 NFHS Rule Changes For Three-Years
February 25, 2009 (Petition A-11 – b) Continued
On behalf of the mostly small to mid-size schools statewide that would benefit from this type of study, we are petitioning our State Association to forgo some of the 2009 NFHS rule changes of (7-2-5-b) regarding the required number of players (at least Four), that must be wearing an ineligible jersey number (#50 – 79) and set on the Line of Scrimmage at the snap of the football on 1st, 2nd & 3rd downs. Except for on 4th down when the jersey numbering requirement is essentially waived. Secondly, we are asking our State to not institute the 2009 NFHS rules change to definition of a Scrimmage Kick Formation (2-14-2) & (7-2-5-b) and the numbering Exception.
*We are asking our State Association to recognize the 2008 NFHS definition of a Scrimmage Kick Formation for Three football seasons (2009, 2010 & 2011), which allows a system like the A-11 Offense or a Hybrid of it to operate on any down. To date, the benefits demonstrated (including improved safety) for the mostly small to mid-size high schools have been documented, and a comprehensive Three-year study by our State working with schools wanting to volunteer to participate in this study would be incredibly valuable for every student-athlete in our State. There is no downside to working with some State schools wanting to volunteer to take part in this study.
Our State could inform the NFHS about its intent to study these “different” offensive systems, and the effects listed below by teams using the A-11 Offense or a Hybrid of it on any down. This would also enable our State to ‘step back’ from the NFHS football rules committee for three seasons and enact this innovative study on behalf of every school in our State. This study could be tracked properly, using continued testimony from football officials, coaches, players, athletic trainers & orthopedic specialists, and the further review of solid video evidence. The results of this study could lead to our State permanently allowing “different” football systems such as the A-11 Offense or a Hybrid of it to operate on any down, abolishing these “different” offenses, or creating a new sub-Section for schools within the framework of our State – especially for the small to mid-size schools. As noted, smaller schools normally face a different set of challenges compared to most of the larger enrollment schools and/or heavily stocked private schools.
Some of the items for our State to study for three seasons:
• Does it improve the overall Safety of the student-athletes?
• Are the games able to be properly officiated?
• Increased or decreased participation by the student-athletes?
• Testimonials from student-athletes?
• Testimonials from Officials who have actually worked the games?
• Testimonials from Coaches and Administrators?
• Is it a travesty of the game?
• Does it cause harm to the defense and lead to inequity on the field of play?
• Does it cause harm to the offense and lead to inequity on the field of play?
• Overall won-loss records of teams using it?
• Does it increase diversity in terms of student-athlete participation?
• Does it increase attendance at football games and generate excitement?
• Does it help promote positive school and community relations?
• Does it make the game fun for the student-athletes actually playing the game?
• Does it give small to mid-size schools a better chance of competing vs. larger schools and/or the private schools they play by their pre-assigned state classification
Dual Petition for Your Own State Association and the NFHS
Introduction:
Dear Football Coaches and School Administrators,
* 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.
1. You can use the exact wording of the Dual Petition to help your school.
2. Simply cut and paste the Text of these Petitions into a new document of your choosing.
3. Delete our State Association's Name and Insert your Own State Association info.
4. Delete our Administrator's Info, and then insert your Own Administrative info.
5. Once you do that, convert your Dual Petition into the format of your choice. Then, contact your Own State Association to see if Your State has a Specific Form or Procedure to follow to officially submit your Petition. Also for your records, request copies of your own State Association’s communication with the NFHS regarding these issues.
6. Attach your Dual Petition to the Official Paperwork required by your State Association & send it via Certified Mail to your State Association’s Executive Director, and State Rules Interpreter.
7. And, send copies via Certified Mail to NFHS headquarters in Indianapolis, IN.
8. Once your own Dual Petition has been enacted, inform your local Media outlets of your Petition drive: Newspapers, Radio and Television. Email them copies of your Dual Petition after you have completed Steps # 1- 7 listed above.
9. After submitting your Dual Petition to your State Association and NFHS, please keep us posted via email, and also let us know about the status of your Dual Petition.
10. Let’s keep working together with our State Associations and the NFHS so everybody wins.
"One of the major issues the NFHS & CIF owes to every student-athlete playing tackle football is to study the incredible safety aspect the A-11 Offense has brought to high school football, and the documented fact that the A-11 helps to reduce major injuries because the players are super spread out across the field of play. In two years of using the A-11, Piedmont players have not suffered a catastrophic injury, and most of the other A-11 teams nationwide have reported similar results. This great discovery about that amazing fact should cause the CIF to act immediately to implement a statewide study as detailed in our Dual Petition. The state would be well-served to look at the reduced injury rate ASAP." Steve Humphries (Co-creator A-11 Offense)
Petition For CIF to Implement a Three-Year Experiment Using Existing NFHS Guidelines
February 25, 2009 (Petition A-11 – a)
In an effort to reach an honorable compromise between small to mid-size schools participating in 11-man tackle football in the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) and the National Federation of High Schools (NFHS), please review the following proposed “Experiment” as per the previously established NFHS experimental guidelines. This “Experiment” would enable both groups time to conduct due diligence & track the effects of this “Experiment” over a three-year period, encompassing the football seasons of 2009, 2010 and 2011.
Reasoning:
In many cases, small to mid-size schools participating in 11-man tackle football do not have nearly as many, or even enough traditional Offensive Lineman to effectively compete on the field of play – compared to the larger enrollment schools & heavily stocked private schools they play that usually have a much larger quantity of Offensive Lineman found at their schools, even though both groups of schools are often assigned to the exact same State classification. For the student-athletes, safety is always the top priority, after that comes competitive equity. Traditionally Offensive Lineman wear a jersey numbered (#50 – 79). The primary reason an offense like the A-11 was conceived, had to do with the overall consistent shortage of traditional Offensive Lineman found within the enrollment of our student body. It is a simple fact.
* The January 2009 NFHS rules change (7-2-5-b) scheduled to take effect in the 2009 football season states that on 1st, 2nd and 3rd down, an Offensive team must have at least Four players wearing jersey number (#50 – 79) on the Line of Scrimmage when the football is snapped. Except on 4th down, when the jersey numbering requirement is essentially waived.
Experiment Request for our State Association & the NFHS to Support:
Please support an “Experiment” for NFHS rule (7-2-5-b) and allow no less than THREE Offensive players wearing jersey number (#50-79) on the Line of Scrimmage when the football is snapped. Except on 4th down, when the jersey numbering requirement is essentially waived.
Implementing this “Experiment” will not change any other rule. Most importantly, it will enable any school; most assuredly the small to mid-size schools an even safer and more flexible approach in the application of their student-athlete personnel as they compete on the field of play.
Some criteria that could be studied by our State & NFHS are on the next page of this Petition.
Sincerely,
Randall Booker, Principal
Piedmont High School
800 Magnolia Ave. Piedmont, CA 94611
Items for the CIF and NFHS to Review During a Three-Year Experiment
(Petition A-11 – a) Continued
Please support an “Experiment” for NFHS rule (7-2-5-b) and allow no less than THREE Offensive players wearing jersey number (#50-79) on the Line of Scrimmage when the football is snapped. Except on 4th down, when the jersey numbering requirement is essentially waived.
The three-year “Experiment” would commence in 2009 and continue through the 2011 football season. Our State and the NFHS would review the effects regarding the items listed below by teams using various styles of offense predicated on having no less than THREE Offensive players wearing jersey number (#50-79) on the Line of Scrimmage when the football is snapped. Except on 4th down, when the jersey numbering requirement is essentially waived.
This could lead to our State and/or the NFHS permanently allowing the proposed rules of this “Experiment”, abolishing it, or creating a new Sub-Federation within the framework of our State and the NFHS, for teams wanting to utilize the rules put forth in this “Experiment.”
Some of the items for review by our State and the NFHS:
• Does it improve the overall Safety of the student-athletes?
• Are the games able to be properly officiated?
• Increased or decreased participation by the student-athletes?
• Testimonials from student-athletes?
• Testimonials from Officials who have actually worked the games?
• Testimonials from Coaches and Administrators?
• Is it a travesty of the game?
• Does it cause harm to the defense and lead to inequity on the field of play?
• Does it cause harm to the offense and lead to inequity on the field of play?
• Overall won-loss records of teams using it?
• Does it increase diversity in terms of student-athlete participation?
• Does it increase attendance at football games and generate excitement?
• Does it help promote positive school and community relations?
• Does it make the game fun for the student-athletes actually playing the game?
• Does it give small to mid-size schools a better chance of competing vs. larger schools and/or the private schools they play by their pre-assigned state classification?
Petition For the CIF to Forgo Some 2009 NFHS Rule Changes For Three-Years
February 25, 2009 (Petition A-11 – b)
The CIF can elect to support the mostly small to mid-size schools that would benefit by implementing the proposed three-year “Experiment” detailed in Petition (A-11 – a) of this Dual Petition. Or, as an alternative plan, we are Petitioning our State to forgo a couple of the 2009 NFHS rule changes scheduled for the 2009 football season. Such as, not implementing the 2009 NFHS rules change (7-2-5-b) stating at least Four players wearing jersey number (#50 – 79) must be on the Line of Scrimmage at the snap of the football on 1st, 2nd and 3rd downs. Except for on 4th down when the jersey (#50 –79) numbering requirement is essentially waived. Secondly, we are asking our State to not institute the 2009 NFHS rules change regarding the definition of a Scrimmage Kick Formation rules (2-14-2) & (7-2-5-b) and the numbering Exception.
Reasoning:
Since 1982 (twenty-seven seasons), 11-man tackle football teams in our State have competed using the existing definition of a Scrimmage Kick Formation - allowing for systems like the A-11 Offense or a Hybrid of it to operate on any down. These new “different” offenses can help small to mid-size schools that often do not have enough traditional Offensive Lineman – compared to most of the larger enrollment schools or heavily stocked private schools they must play due to their assigned State classification. Starting in the 2007, teams using the A-11 Offense began competing against Non-A-11 teams without incident & with equitable results. More importantly, the overwhelming majority of the officials actually managing A-11 games in the state have reported the games can be officiated properly. Sam Moriana, Head of the Football Officials in the East Bay of California, is a 50-year officiating veteran. His officiating crews have managed more games involving the A-11 Offense than any other group of officials in the nation in 2007 & 2008.
“Any good high school official who is competent would have no problem officiating a game showcasing the A-11 scheme. It’s really no big deal. We’ve had no complaints from any officials whatsoever that have refereed their games.” Sam Moriana.
Precedent Established by the CIF, Texas, Massachusetts and Other States:
Our State & any State in the Union is not bound to follow NFHS rules. Example, the CIF gave up its seat on the NFHS Basketball Rules Committee by exercising its authority to act contrary to the NFHS position of not recognizing the use of a Shot Clock in boys & girls high school basketball games. To make the basketball games more exciting & equitable for each school in the State, the CIF implemented the use of a Shot Clock - thereby not recognizing the “no clock” rule of the NFHS. The independent action by the CIF established a precedent relative to the NFHS and its actual power. It’s clear any State Association can equitably decide to allow a style of football like the A-11 Offense or a Hybrid of it to be studied in their State over Three years, to examine the benefits of these “different” systems. Equally important, it would demonstrate a consistent effort by the CIF & any State, to remain flexible regarding the use of innovation in sports for the benefit of every school in their State. Other examples include Texas & Massachusetts, State members of the NFHS, but allowed to use modified NCAA rules to govern high school football. In California, the Oakland Athletic League & San Francisco Academic Athletic Association are members of the CIF & NFHS, but they are allowed to operate independently of the State Playoff systems.
Sincerely,
Randall Booker, Principal
Piedmont High School
800 Magnolia Ave. Piedmont, CA 94611
Petition For the CIF to Forgo Some 2009 NFHS Rule Changes For Three-Years
February 25, 2009 (Petition A-11 – b) Continued
On behalf of the mostly small to mid-size schools statewide that would benefit from this type of study, we are petitioning our State Association to forgo some of the 2009 NFHS rule changes of (7-2-5-b) regarding the required number of players (at least Four), that must be wearing an ineligible jersey number (#50 – 79) and set on the Line of Scrimmage at the snap of the football on 1st, 2nd & 3rd downs. Except for on 4th down when the jersey numbering requirement is essentially waived. Secondly, we are asking our State to not institute the 2009 NFHS rules change to definition of a Scrimmage Kick Formation (2-14-2) & (7-2-5-b) and the numbering Exception.
*We are asking our State Association to recognize the 2008 NFHS definition of a Scrimmage Kick Formation for Three football seasons (2009, 2010 & 2011), which allows a system like the A-11 Offense or a Hybrid of it to operate on any down. To date, the benefits demonstrated (including improved safety) for the mostly small to mid-size high schools have been documented, and a comprehensive Three-year study by our State working with schools wanting to volunteer to participate in this study would be incredibly valuable for every student-athlete in our State. There is no downside to working with some State schools wanting to volunteer to take part in this study.
Our State could inform the NFHS about its intent to study these “different” offensive systems, and the effects listed below by teams using the A-11 Offense or a Hybrid of it on any down. This would also enable our State to ‘step back’ from the NFHS football rules committee for three seasons and enact this innovative study on behalf of every school in our State. This study could be tracked properly, using continued testimony from football officials, coaches, players, athletic trainers & orthopedic specialists, and the further review of solid video evidence. The results of this study could lead to our State permanently allowing “different” football systems such as the A-11 Offense or a Hybrid of it to operate on any down, abolishing these “different” offenses, or creating a new sub-Section for schools within the framework of our State – especially for the small to mid-size schools. As noted, smaller schools normally face a different set of challenges compared to most of the larger enrollment schools and/or heavily stocked private schools.
Some of the items for our State to study for three seasons:
• Does it improve the overall Safety of the student-athletes?
• Are the games able to be properly officiated?
• Increased or decreased participation by the student-athletes?
• Testimonials from student-athletes?
• Testimonials from Officials who have actually worked the games?
• Testimonials from Coaches and Administrators?
• Is it a travesty of the game?
• Does it cause harm to the defense and lead to inequity on the field of play?
• Does it cause harm to the offense and lead to inequity on the field of play?
• Overall won-loss records of teams using it?
• Does it increase diversity in terms of student-athlete participation?
• Does it increase attendance at football games and generate excitement?
• Does it help promote positive school and community relations?
• Does it make the game fun for the student-athletes actually playing the game?
• Does it give small to mid-size schools a better chance of competing vs. larger schools and/or the private schools they play by their pre-assigned state classification
