[C.Clair]

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

[PC_You_Know]

Utterly stupid, coaches just don't want to have to defend it in games.

[CoachB]

I agree, if it works for someone, it is the DC's job to stop it.

Utterly stupid, coaches just don't want to have to defend it in games.

[Magicjefferson25]

Anyone have a video of this offense?

[C.Clair]

[barrel]

Cut blocking in the open field works too but it has been removed from the Fed rules. Fumblerooskie, sideline surprise, "wrong ball" and a number of other things were legal and have been removed from Fed and in some cases college.

The offense takes advantage of a rule that was put in place to allow return teams and long snappers to be skill position players instead of having your normal OL trying to cover a punt. The states that "banned" it delcared it was unsportsman. If you look in the fed rules the "ban" is backed up by rules already in the fed handbook.

[charlie22]

Cut blocking in the open field works too but it has been removed from the Fed rules. Fumblerooskie, sideline surprise, "wrong ball" and a number of other things were legal and have been removed from Fed and in some cases college.

The offense takes advantage of a rule that was put in place to allow return teams and long snappers to be skill position players instead of having your normal OL trying to cover a punt. The states that "banned" it delcared it was unsportsman. If you look in the fed rules the "ban" is backed up by rules already in the fed handbook.

I agree that the offense is taking advantage of a loophole in the rules and to some extent is unsportsman-like.

But the question, at least to me, is whether the rules should be changed to make the A-11 completely legit? I don't see why the A-11 shouldn't be made legal. When you look at the video, most of the successful offensive plays were more a result of poor execution by the defense than anything special about the offense. Part of that is probably the result of the defensive teams not having much experience defending such a wide open offense and not developing the number of skilled positions on defense to match up with all the possible receivers. To some extent, it reminds me of what happened when the option O first was being used: most defenses hadn't develop the players and system to defend it. But eventually defensive coordinators figured it out and developed the players and system needed to stop it. If the A-11 would be made legit and more teams used it, I'm sure the defenses would adapt to it.

Didn't LexCath successfully use this offense, or at least some version of it, in the second half of a playoff game against Franklin County back in 2006? I'm pretty sure they did. Franklin County didn't have the skilled players to match up with LexCath's skilled receivers (Revere was on that LexCath team) but is that any different than a defense not having the players needed to match up with a power running offense utilized by an opponent?

[barrel]

I do not know for a fact but I would say that Lex Cath used the BYU, Emroy/Leroy, or Ninja formation. They are all the same thing just called by different names. I would be very surprised to find out Lex Cath put 11 guys with eligable numbers out on the field which is what the A-11 does.

Hoenstly a good deal of the backlash about the A-11 comes from the guys at Peidmont and the way they promoted the offense. If they had not try to sell the offense so hard nationally then I do not think we are having this topic of conversation.

[charlie22]

I do not know for a fact but I would say that Lex Cath used the BYU, Emroy/Leroy, or Ninja formation. They are all the same thing just called by different names. I would be very surprised to find out Lex Cath put 11 guys with eligable numbers out on the field which is what the A-11 does.

Hoenstly a good deal of the backlash about the A-11 comes from the guys at Peidmont and the way they promoted the offense. If they had not try to sell the offense so hard nationally then I do not think we are having this topic of conversation.

You are probably right about the eligible numbers thing. I was at the game but don't recall paying attention to the numbers being worn by the players.