Can't stop an offense? Make it illegal!

[modocsot]

A-11 Offense Now Has to Play Defense

http://highschool.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=911196

Kurt Bryan, the football coach at Piedmont (Calif.) High School, has heard the wail of protests against his A-11 offense. Deceiving, skirting the rules, unsportsmanlike. It has been labeled gimmicky and it has its enemies.

That's why he can only imagine that the worst is in store for his and Steve Humphries' offense in the next week.

The A-11 offense, a super-sized spread with eligible receivers popping up all over the field, has been banned by some high school state associations. Bryan is worried the National Federation of State High School Associations is going to adopt rule changes for 2009 that will ruin the scheme in the states where it is used.

The football rules committee of the NHFS met Jan. 24-26 in Indianapolis and Bryan said the committee discussed proposals that would effectively take the fledgling A-11 off the chalkboard.

Brad Garrett, the assistant executive director of the Oregon Activities Association and vice chairman of the NFHS Rules Football Committee, said rules committee members cannot talk about proposed rule changes or how they voted.

The rules committee makes recommendations to the NFHS national governing board, which votes whether to accept recommendations, but the board typically passes what it is presented by the rules committee. The board is expected to release rule changes for 2009 in the next week.

One of the proposals the committee discussed, which would curtail the A-11, was to take away an exception to rule 7-2-5b that allows players with jersey numbers 1-49 and 80-99 to be down linemen, and eligible pass receivers, in a scrimmage kick formation.

The A-11 (A11Offense.com) creators used that exception to have all of their players wear numbers 1-49 or 80-99, numbers reserved for receivers, and said if the numbering is allowed for scrimmage kicks it should be allowed for all offensive plays. Referees working A-11 games, Bryan said, have not thrown flags for ineligible receivers and allowed the offense to proceed throughout the game.

Bryan and Humphries, who is Piedmont's director of football operations, said the National Federation might institute rules to block the use of the A-11 by member schools, but that is not going to make the offense go away.

"There is a demonstrative benefit of using the A-11 offense, and there is room in America for more than one style of football," Bryan said. "There is a loud, ugly minority out there that is against this offense.

"This is standing up for the little guy in football, the schools without the numbers of kids or the big linemen. There is a huge disconnect between the players on the ground, the kids that play in this offense and the National Federation."

Bryan said if the National Federation adopts rules curtailing the use of the A-11 among NFHS members, then there will be a movement to create a federation for schools that want to use the A-11.

"What is ridiculous is there already are A-11 teams playing non-A-11 teams without incident," Bryan said. "We are playing within the rules."

Bryan said as far as he knows the opponents of the A-11 offense have not been to a game to watch the offense and examine it closely.

In the A-11, players do not wear the traditional jersey numbers for linemen: they use 1-49, and 80 through 99, which is legal. This means that all 11 players on offense can be eligible for a pass.

In essence, the offense creates an island for 11 players, spreading the defense out, and looking for one-on-one matchups.

If a player gets set on the line, and another player lines up outside that player, the inside player is ineligible to catch a pass. What the A-11 can do is have offensive players wait until the final seconds of the play clock and then take positions on the line making it difficult for the defense to know, until the last moment, which receivers are eligible.

The North Carolina High School Athletic Association declared the A-11 offense was an "unsporting act" and banned its members from using the offense.

Officials from state associations who say their members cannot use the offense said the A-11 uses a loophole in the rules to deceive opponents. That loophole could get closed in the next week.

"The rule was written for a scrimmage kick exception, the number requirement, to aid in terms of long snappers and blocking situations," said Mark Dreibelbis, the supervisor of officials for the North Carolina High School Athletic Association. "They are taking a rule book exception for a scrimmage kick and putting it [in] place every down of the game and that is not the intent of the rule and it is outside the spirit of the rule code and it is an attempt to deceive and attempts to deceive are unsporting acts."

Dr. Ralph Swearngin, the executive director of the Georgia High School Association, warned schools in Georgia during the 2008 season about using the A-11 because he said it broke National Federation rules.

On its Web site, the GHSA's warning said any player in a game in a scrimmage kick situation (punt, field goal, extra point) wearing jerseys 1-49 to 80-99 still "must assume an initial position on his line of scrimmage between the ends and he remains an ineligible forward-pass receiver during the down."

Bryan said it is not his intent to try and lead schools to break away from the National Federation. He has proposed a sub-federation for schools that want to play A-11 football.

"Allowing teams the right to use A-11 football if they want to is extremely viable," Bryan said. "And there are plenty of people who will be ready to help set that up so everybody wins."

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

Your only validation for the A-11 is "It's not cheating it's a loophole. Other people take advantage of loopholes."

Well, you're a fool. It's been ruled illegal on all levels of football except the high school level. And the majority of state high schools have already made it illegal, or are trying to do so, as evidenced by this very article.

This quote makes it very clear:

And like they said, if you want to make a new game in a new league that allows for ridiculous formations like A-11, then go create your own league and play away. But it's not football.

You do realize that people could have just as easily outlawed the Wing T, The I-Formation, The West Coast Offense, the Shotgun formation, the Option, Flexbone, Wishbone, the Run and Shoot, the K-Gun, and the Spread from the argument that you are making.

Or, let's do it this way:

"Hey, that lineman is dropping into zone coverage and the linebacker is going after the quarterback. That's bullshit. They are taking advantage of a loophole in the rules. Lineman are supposed to rush the passer and stop the run, not defend the pass.

What a ****ing bunch of cockamamie cheating bullshit!!"

[Fish]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

You do realize that people could have just as easily outlawed the Wing T, The I-Formation, The West Coast Offense, the Shotgun formation, the Option, Flexbone, Wishbone, the Run and Shoot, the K-Gun, and the Spread from the argument that you are making.

Or, let's do it this way:

"Hey, that lineman is dropping into zone coverage and the linebacker is going after the quarterback. That's bullshit. They are taking advantage of a loophole in the rules. Lineman are supposed to rush the passer and stop the run, not defend the pass.

What a ****ing bunch of cockamamie cheating bullshit!!"

Come on Hamas. Please tell me what made any of those listed formations illegal? Each one of those formations fulfills the rules for pass eligibility for an offensive play.

The reason A-11 is different than each of the offenses you listed, is that the A-11 isn't an offense. It's a formation only allowed for a scrimmage kick. It can't even be called an "offense". It's only seen as legal when in the formation for a scrimmage kick. And only then if all the players are wearing "receiver" jersey numbers. The fact that these teams are passing out of a scrimmage kick formation is the entire point here.

The Wing T, The I-Formation, The West Coast Offense, the Shotgun formation, the Option, Flexbone, Wishbone, the Run and Shoot, the K-Gun, and the Spread all are legal offensive formations. And each of those can be run regardless of receiver jersey numbers. None of these offenses require that you call the formation something other than an "offensive formation".

[Brock]

Should be up to the athletic association in question. End of dispute.

[JuicesFlowing]

The defense can't stop the offense from scoring? Sounds like it's the D's problem.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

Come on Hamas. Please tell me what made any of those listed formations illegal? Each one of those formations fulfills the rules for pass eligibility for an offensive play.

The reason A-11 is different than each of the offenses you listed, is that the A-11 isn't an offense. It's a formation only allowed for a scrimmage kick. It can't even be called an "offense". It's only seen as legal when in the formation for a scrimmage kick. And only then if all the players are wearing "receiver" jersey numbers. The fact that these teams are passing out of a scrimmage kick formation is the entire point here.

The Wing T, The I-Formation, The West Coast Offense, the Shotgun formation, the Option, Flexbone, Wishbone, the Run and Shoot, the K-Gun, and the Spread all are legal offensive formations. And each of those can be run regardless of receiver jersey numbers. None of these offenses require that you call the formation something other than an "offensive formation".

Do you recall the debate over the legality of the forward pass?

Or the fact that pre-snap motion could have been considered exploiting a loophole.

Or the tackle eligible play.

The huddle.

7 guys on the line

The funny thing is that the inferior talent of Notre Dame triumphed over the powerhouses of the day, like Army, by using a little known and employed system called the forward pass, something strangely similar to how these A-11 schools can compete with inferior talent.

Would you feel comfortable in telling Knute Rockne that his offensive scheme was "not football"?

[whoman69]

Originally Posted by Unleash_the_Phury

Oh I agree. But the point of the A11 was to give this small school with no real line talent a fighting chance. It's no fun running a normal offense, failing miserably, and then having the other team run up the score. If they have the physical ability to field a team with a legitimate o-line, they should probably do it. But it doesn't make sense to criminalize an idea designed to prevent a team from being used as a league doormat.

Horrible argument. Leagues and state classifications are done by school size. If the schools they are playing are too large then they should change conferences. The rule is only in place on kicks to allow the team to get down the field for coverage. Anything else is bull.

[Mr. Laz]

it's high school, not professional.


i have no problem with them making rules concerning sportsmanship and competitive balance.

[Skip Towne]

And nobody mentions the Houston Veer.

[Ultra Peanut]

Originally Posted by H5N1

ya know, the funny thing is that, at one point, the forward pass was as 'out of left field' as the A-11 offense. where would we be without the forward pass?

The forward pass is a GOD DAMNED JAP PLAY.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Do you recall the debate over the legality of the forward pass?

Or the fact that pre-snap motion could have been considered exploiting a loophole.

Or the tackle eligible play.

The huddle.

7 guys on the line

The funny thing is that the inferior talent of Notre Dame triumphed over the powerhouses of the day, like Army, by using a little known and employed system called the forward pass, something strangely similar to how these A-11 schools can compete with inferior talent.

Would you feel comfortable in telling Knute Rockne that his offensive scheme was "not football"?

**** tits man. The legality of the forward pass? Seriously? The forward pass debate was held over 100 years ago. Pre-snap motion has been an accepted rule for about 90 years. Teams have been "huddling" since the 1890s. The rules you list have been part of the game for a long long time. They've been accepted for multiple decades. How the hell are you even beginning to compare any of that to the A-11? Fundamental changes that were made to the game 100 years ago don't justify the loophole used in the A-11 over the last 2 years. And since the A-11 was conceived, it has been analyzed and rejected by all current sports establishments except certain high schools. The NFL, and NCAA agree that this isn't a change they want made to the game.

And no, Knute's offense would be against the rules today. It definitely has it's place in the history of the game, but in today's game you can't run the multiple motions before the offense is set like he did in that day. The NCAA would tell him as much if he were a coach today.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Laz

it's high school, not professional.


i have no problem with them making rules concerning sportsmanship and competitive balance.

This has nothing to do with "making" a rule to bring about competitive balance. That's simply justification that is being made by A-11 supporters. They found a loophole in the current rules and decided to exploit it. The didn't add anything for the sake of sportsmanship. There was no new rule put in place. They just found an unfair advantage that they could exploit only because the current rules don't explicitly forbid it. Which is currently being changed according to the article.

[CrazyPhuD]

I'm confused???? How does the A-11 offense insult any friends/family and if not then why should it be banned?

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

**** tits man. The legality of the forward pass? Seriously? The forward pass debate was held over 100 years ago. Pre-snap motion has been an accepted rule for about 90 years. Teams have been "huddling" since the 1890s. The rules you list have been part of the game for a long long time. They've been accepted for multiple decades. How the hell are you even beginning to compare any of that to the A-11? Fundamental changes that were made to the game 100 years ago don't justify the loophole used in the A-11 over the last 2 years. And since the A-11 was conceived, it has been analyzed and rejected by all current sports establishments except certain high schools. The NFL, and NCAA agree that this isn't a change they want made to the game.

And no, Knute's offense would be against the rules today. It definitely has it's place in the history of the game, but in today's game you can't run the multiple motions before the offense is set like he did in that day. The NCAA would tell him as much if he were a coach today.

So were their legalities once debated, or were they not?

I forgot that organized sports are monolithic. Sorry.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

This has nothing to do with "making" a rule to bring about competitive balance. That's simply justification that is being made by A-11 supporters. They found a loophole in the current rules and decided to exploit it. The didn't add anything for the sake of sportsmanship. There was no new rule put in place. They just found an unfair advantage that they could exploit only because the current rules don't explicitly forbid it. Which is currently being changed according to the article.

Please see:

Square Grooves
The Neutral Zone Trap
The Shot Clock

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

This has nothing to do with "making" a rule to bring about competitive balance. That's simply justification that is being made by A-11 supporters. They found a loophole in the current rules and decided to exploit it. The didn't add anything for the sake of sportsmanship. There was no new rule put in place. They just found an unfair advantage that they could exploit only because the current rules don't explicitly forbid it. Which is currently being changed according to the article.

dude ... you miss understand me

i have no problem with them making a new rule to close the loophole for this new offense.


this title of the thread sound like the OP was crying about people wanting to use rules to stop this new offense because they couldn't stop in on the field.

like i said .... it's high school, so i don't care if they are using rules just to stop this offense.