Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18
  1. #11
    Mr Anderson's Avatar
    Mr Anderson is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    7,686

    Re: Banning the A-11 offense is a bad idea

    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "Mr" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    They didn't necessarily "ban" the offense.
    They just closed the loophole in the rules that the offense was exploiting.

    Basically this offense did away with a traditional offensive line.
    Any of the 11 players were eligible to catch a pass before the snap because they lined up in a "kick formation" every time and every kid's jersey number was within a certain number range.


    It is creative to be sure, and it was rather successful too, but this isn't an example of coming up with new formations that force defenses to adjust.
    It is an example of breaking the eligible reciever rules without actually breaking them.

    There are reasons that we set rules for the number of eligible recievers, and the number of people on the line, etc.
    They are there for both safety and parity sake.
    Circumventing the rules by finding loopholes seems pretty Belichick-like to me.
    They're not breaking them?

    [img width=450 height=300]http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2008/0811/pg2_diagram1_600.jpg[/img]
    To my knowledge, "R" and "E" are ineligible receivers.
    In a normal formation, yes.
    However, there was a loophole that allows all 11 players to be potentially eligible on what is known as a scrimmage-kick formation, if everyone is wearing numbers between 1-49 and 80-99.
    It is a stupid loophole, more or less inserted to make fake punts/onside kicks legle.

    The loophole has since been removed.

    I am on the same page as you, I think that they were exploiting a rule to create an unfair advantage.
    I am glad it was changed.
    Thanks NP, I kind of jumped the gun on that one. I saw the picture, but didn't read.

  2. #12
    i_bleed_purple's Avatar
    i_bleed_purple is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Canadialand
    Posts
    16,776
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Banning the A-11 offense is a bad idea

    "Mr" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "Mr" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    They didn't necessarily "ban" the offense.
    They just closed the loophole in the rules that the offense was exploiting.

    Basically this offense did away with a traditional offensive line.
    Any of the 11 players were eligible to catch a pass before the snap because they lined up in a "kick formation" every time and every kid's jersey number was within a certain number range.


    It is creative to be sure, and it was rather successful too, but this isn't an example of coming up with new formations that force defenses to adjust.
    It is an example of breaking the eligible reciever rules without actually breaking them.

    There are reasons that we set rules for the number of eligible recievers, and the number of people on the line, etc.
    They are there for both safety and parity sake.
    Circumventing the rules by finding loopholes seems pretty Belichick-like to me.
    They're not breaking them?

    [img width=450 height=300]http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2008/0811/pg2_diagram1_600.jpg[/img]
    To my knowledge, "R" and "E" are ineligible receivers.
    In a normal formation, yes.
    However, there was a loophole that allows all 11 players to be potentially eligible on what is known as a scrimmage-kick formation, if everyone is wearing numbers between 1-49 and 80-99.
    It is a stupid loophole, more or less inserted to make fake punts/onside kicks legle.

    The loophole has since been removed.

    I am on the same page as you, I think that they were exploiting a rule to create an unfair advantage.
    I am glad it was changed.
    Thanks NP, I kind of jumped the gun on that one. I saw the picture, but didn't read.

    Eligible or not, could they not still run out of that formation?

  3. #13
    Mr Anderson's Avatar
    Mr Anderson is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    7,686

    Re: Banning the A-11 offense is a bad idea

    "i_bleed_purple" wrote:
    "Mr" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "Mr" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    They didn't necessarily "ban" the offense.
    They just closed the loophole in the rules that the offense was exploiting.

    Basically this offense did away with a traditional offensive line.
    Any of the 11 players were eligible to catch a pass before the snap because they lined up in a "kick formation" every time and every kid's jersey number was within a certain number range.


    It is creative to be sure, and it was rather successful too, but this isn't an example of coming up with new formations that force defenses to adjust.
    It is an example of breaking the eligible reciever rules without actually breaking them.

    There are reasons that we set rules for the number of eligible recievers, and the number of people on the line, etc.
    They are there for both safety and parity sake.
    Circumventing the rules by finding loopholes seems pretty Belichick-like to me.
    They're not breaking them?

    [img width=450 height=300]http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2008/0811/pg2_diagram1_600.jpg[/img]
    To my knowledge, "R" and "E" are ineligible receivers.
    In a normal formation, yes.
    However, there was a loophole that allows all 11 players to be potentially eligible on what is known as a scrimmage-kick formation, if everyone is wearing numbers between 1-49 and 80-99.
    It is a stupid loophole, more or less inserted to make fake punts/onside kicks legle.

    The loophole has since been removed.

    I am on the same page as you, I think that they were exploiting a rule to create an unfair advantage.
    I am glad it was changed.
    Thanks NP, I kind of jumped the gun on that one. I saw the picture, but didn't read.

    Eligible or not, could they not still run out of that formation?
    They could, but it wouldn't be the strongest formation to run out of.

  4. #14
    i_bleed_purple's Avatar
    i_bleed_purple is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Canadialand
    Posts
    16,776
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Banning the A-11 offense is a bad idea

    "Mr" wrote:
    "i_bleed_purple" wrote:
    "Mr" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "Mr" wrote:
    [quote author=NodakPaul link=topic=50806.msg916937#msg916937 date=1236101599]
    They didn't necessarily "ban" the offense.
    They just closed the loophole in the rules that the offense was exploiting.

    Basically this offense did away with a traditional offensive line.
    Any of the 11 players were eligible to catch a pass before the snap because they lined up in a "kick formation" every time and every kid's jersey number was within a certain number range.


    It is creative to be sure, and it was rather successful too, but this isn't an example of coming up with new formations that force defenses to adjust.
    It is an example of breaking the eligible reciever rules without actually breaking them.

    There are reasons that we set rules for the number of eligible recievers, and the number of people on the line, etc.
    They are there for both safety and parity sake.
    Circumventing the rules by finding loopholes seems pretty Belichick-like to me.
    They're not breaking them?

    [img width=450 height=300]http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2008/0811/pg2_diagram1_600.jpg[/img]
    To my knowledge, "R" and "E" are ineligible receivers.
    In a normal formation, yes.
    However, there was a loophole that allows all 11 players to be potentially eligible on what is known as a scrimmage-kick formation, if everyone is wearing numbers between 1-49 and 80-99.
    It is a stupid loophole, more or less inserted to make fake punts/onside kicks legle.

    The loophole has since been removed.

    I am on the same page as you, I think that they were exploiting a rule to create an unfair advantage.
    I am glad it was changed.
    Thanks NP, I kind of jumped the gun on that one. I saw the picture, but didn't read.

    Eligible or not, could they not still run out of that formation?
    They could, but it wouldn't be the strongest formation to run out of.
    [/quote]

    normally, no, but it depends on the team.
    Some high schools aren't very good, spread out the offense, and use the speed to find holes.
    I'm sure there are ways to get some yardage out of that.

  5. #15
    Vikestand's Avatar
    Vikestand is offline Coordinator
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    801

    Re: Banning the A-11 offense is a bad idea

    "i_bleed_purple" wrote:
    "Mr" wrote:
    "i_bleed_purple" wrote:
    "Mr" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    [quote author=Mr Anderson link=topic=50806.msg916969#msg916969 date=1236103198]
    [quote author=NodakPaul link=topic=50806.msg916937#msg916937 date=1236101599]
    They didn't necessarily "ban" the offense.
    They just closed the loophole in the rules that the offense was exploiting.

    Basically this offense did away with a traditional offensive line.
    Any of the 11 players were eligible to catch a pass before the snap because they lined up in a "kick formation" every time and every kid's jersey number was within a certain number range.


    It is creative to be sure, and it was rather successful too, but this isn't an example of coming up with new formations that force defenses to adjust.
    It is an example of breaking the eligible reciever rules without actually breaking them.

    There are reasons that we set rules for the number of eligible recievers, and the number of people on the line, etc.
    They are there for both safety and parity sake.
    Circumventing the rules by finding loopholes seems pretty Belichick-like to me.
    They're not breaking them?

    [img width=450 height=300]http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2008/0811/pg2_diagram1_600.jpg[/img]
    To my knowledge, "R" and "E" are ineligible receivers.
    In a normal formation, yes.
    However, there was a loophole that allows all 11 players to be potentially eligible on what is known as a scrimmage-kick formation, if everyone is wearing numbers between 1-49 and 80-99.
    It is a stupid loophole, more or less inserted to make fake punts/onside kicks legle.

    The loophole has since been removed.

    I am on the same page as you, I think that they were exploiting a rule to create an unfair advantage.
    I am glad it was changed.
    Thanks NP, I kind of jumped the gun on that one. I saw the picture, but didn't read.

    Eligible or not, could they not still run out of that formation?
    They could, but it wouldn't be the strongest formation to run out of.
    [/quote]

    normally, no, but it depends on the team.
    Some high schools aren't very good, spread out the offense, and use the speed to find holes.
    I'm sure there are ways to get some yardage out of that.
    [/quote]

    This is a hot topic on MOsports, but I am glad they banned it. Obviously I can see why some teams would run it, smaller schools with less linemen than athletes etc. I'm just glad it's gone. If I wanted to watch flag football formations I would go to a flag football game...


    By Pack93z

    "Success is the ability to go from one failure to the other with no loss of enthusiasm"-Sir Winston Churchill

  6. #16
    Mr Anderson's Avatar
    Mr Anderson is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    7,686

    Re: Banning the A-11 offense is a bad idea

    "i_bleed_purple" wrote:
    "Mr" wrote:
    "i_bleed_purple" wrote:
    "Mr" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    [quote author=Mr Anderson link=topic=50806.msg916969#msg916969 date=1236103198]
    [quote author=NodakPaul link=topic=50806.msg916937#msg916937 date=1236101599]
    They didn't necessarily "ban" the offense.
    They just closed the loophole in the rules that the offense was exploiting.

    Basically this offense did away with a traditional offensive line.
    Any of the 11 players were eligible to catch a pass before the snap because they lined up in a "kick formation" every time and every kid's jersey number was within a certain number range.


    It is creative to be sure, and it was rather successful too, but this isn't an example of coming up with new formations that force defenses to adjust.
    It is an example of breaking the eligible reciever rules without actually breaking them.

    There are reasons that we set rules for the number of eligible recievers, and the number of people on the line, etc.
    They are there for both safety and parity sake.
    Circumventing the rules by finding loopholes seems pretty Belichick-like to me.
    They're not breaking them?

    [img width=450 height=300]http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2008/0811/pg2_diagram1_600.jpg[/img]
    To my knowledge, "R" and "E" are ineligible receivers.
    In a normal formation, yes.
    However, there was a loophole that allows all 11 players to be potentially eligible on what is known as a scrimmage-kick formation, if everyone is wearing numbers between 1-49 and 80-99.
    It is a stupid loophole, more or less inserted to make fake punts/onside kicks legle.

    The loophole has since been removed.

    I am on the same page as you, I think that they were exploiting a rule to create an unfair advantage.
    I am glad it was changed.
    Thanks NP, I kind of jumped the gun on that one. I saw the picture, but didn't read.

    Eligible or not, could they not still run out of that formation?
    They could, but it wouldn't be the strongest formation to run out of.
    [/quote]

    normally, no, but it depends on the team.
    Some high schools aren't very good, spread out the offense, and use the speed to find holes.
    I'm sure there are ways to get some yardage out of that.
    [/quote]
    I can't really see it working from that formation.

    You can essentially disregard R and E since they can't go down field and just blow up every play in the backfield.

    They would really need to adjust the formation. 3 linemen is not enough to run with. It's basically 7 on 4 blocking in the box.

  7. #17
    bleedpurple is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,940

    Re: Banning the A-11 offense is a bad idea

    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "Mr" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    They didn't necessarily "ban" the offense.
    They just closed the loophole in the rules that the offense was exploiting.

    Basically this offense did away with a traditional offensive line.
    Any of the 11 players were eligible to catch a pass before the snap because they lined up in a "kick formation" every time and every kid's jersey number was within a certain number range.


    It is creative to be sure, and it was rather successful too, but this isn't an example of coming up with new formations that force defenses to adjust.
    It is an example of breaking the eligible reciever rules without actually breaking them.

    There are reasons that we set rules for the number of eligible recievers, and the number of people on the line, etc.
    They are there for both safety and parity sake.
    Circumventing the rules by finding loopholes seems pretty Belichick-like to me.
    They're not breaking them?

    [img width=450 height=300]http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2008/0811/pg2_diagram1_600.jpg[/img]
    To my knowledge, "R" and "E" are ineligible receivers.
    Can't resist anymore........... ;D

    Which one is the #1, #2, and #3?

    ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
    LOL GRRR!!!!...

    I got that as soon as you said it... they have more like a 1 thru 6....

  8. #18
    bleedpurple is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,940

    Re: Banning the A-11 offense is a bad idea

    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "Mr" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    They didn't necessarily "ban" the offense.
    They just closed the loophole in the rules that the offense was exploiting.

    Basically this offense did away with a traditional offensive line.
    Any of the 11 players were eligible to catch a pass before the snap because they lined up in a "kick formation" every time and every kid's jersey number was within a certain number range.


    It is creative to be sure, and it was rather successful too, but this isn't an example of coming up with new formations that force defenses to adjust.
    It is an example of breaking the eligible reciever rules without actually breaking them.

    There are reasons that we set rules for the number of eligible recievers, and the number of people on the line, etc.
    They are there for both safety and parity sake.
    Circumventing the rules by finding loopholes seems pretty Belichick-like to me.
    They're not breaking them?

    [img width=450 height=300]http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2008/0811/pg2_diagram1_600.jpg[/img]
    To my knowledge, "R" and "E" are ineligible receivers.
    Can't resist anymore........... ;D

    Which one is the #1, #2, and #3?

    ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
    LOL GRRR!!!!...

    I got that as soon as you said it... they have more like a 1 thru 6....

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Good idea - Bad idea?
    By Bkfldviking in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-20-2009, 10:11 PM
  2. Good idea or Very Bad Idea?
    By Bkfldviking in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-08-2009, 09:32 AM
  3. Atlanta considers banning baggy pants
    By BadlandsVikings in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 08-29-2007, 09:11 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •