a-11 offense (the mother of all spread offenses)

[Abe Sargent]

Looks like fun to watch live

[johnnyshaka]

Doesn't look like teams are really trying to apply pressure and instead are more in a read/react mindset. Definitely have to have a very versatile QB to run it and one who makes good, quick decisions when the time comes.

Obviously the highlights focus on the big gainers but I'd be curious to see what the bread and butter plays are...quick hitting short routes...option running plays...or is the offense built around going for the big play on every play??

[Young Drachma]

An offensive revolution is coming to the NFL. Can anyone stop it? - ESPN The Magazine

espn the mag does a story on the A-11.

[QuikSand]

The four-letter *always* on the cutting edge. Stay tuned for their Spring 2011 gripping expose of the Wildcat offense.

[BrianD]

I'm guessing that the A-11 is gone from High School football in the next year or two. There were a few state associations that outlawed it this year, and there are a bunch of proposed rule changes to get it outlawed on a national level. It is a creative way to use a rule outside of its normal intent, though loopholes like that tend to get closed fairly quickly.

[flere-imsaho]

I love how none of these articles on the A-11 ever talk about the defenses that have stopped it. That would be an important consideration, yesno?

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

The four-letter *always* on the cutting edge.

That's what came to mind when I got the issue in the mail*. I thought that they may have mistakenly sent me an issue from a year or so ago.


* - I don't subscribe to it. I once did, but stopped my subscription over a year ago because it sucks so much. They just kept sending it to me. Probably out of spite.

[stevew]

In the NFL would it be illegal to send out 4 TEs 3 linemen a QB and some combo of 3 WR/RB? Are the 5 ineligible guys predetermined pre snap?

[BrianD]

The 5 are determined pre-snap based on their positioning and numbering. You need 7 on the line so the 5 that aren't on the ends are ineligible. Those 5 have to be wearing numbers in the 50s - 70s. This the the same as in High School. In the NFL, someone with a number 50-79 can appear on the end and be eligible if they declare themselves as such before the play. In HS, you aren't allowed to declare yourself eligible.

To get around the situation where a HS team doesn't have enough properly numbered guys able to handle a punt, they made the numbering exception which allows any numbers to be used on the line in punt formation. This exception is the basis for the A-11.

Edit: One of the big reasons to use the exception in HS is for the long snapper. A lot of teams use a starting or backup QB for this position.

[EagleFan]

Blitz, blitz, blitz and then when they are carting their third quarterback off the field they may decide that linemen are a good thing.

[Senator]

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.

Success on the Field
Piedmont (Calif.) High football was the pioneering school with the A-11. Check out the photo gallery of Piedmont in action. 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.


Piedmont Football
In two seasons with the A-11 offense Piedmont football has become regular participants in the post season. 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.


Wide Open Play Calling
One of the keys to the success of the A-11 is the ability to make an infinite amount of plays. Check out the photo gallery of some of the plays run by Piedmont. "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."

[Young Drachma]

A sub-federation for A11? Yeah, right. So they can make moar monies!

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

A sub-federation for A11? Yeah, right. So they can make moar monies!

I can maybe see where this could work. They talked about it being used as an equalizer when the other side has a lot more talent. Maybe the lower divisions can use the A-11 rules, while "the big boys" have the more traditional rules for their divisions. In Texas, we have 6-man football, so I could see a scenario where A-11 would be slotted between 6-man football, and traditional 11 man play.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by cartman

I can maybe see where this could work. They talked about it being used as an equalizer when the other side has a lot more talent. Maybe the lower divisions can use the A-11 rules, while "the big boys" have the more traditional rules for their divisions. In Texas, we have 6-man football, so I could see a scenario where A-11 would be slotted between 6-man football, and traditional 11 man play.

That'd work. But I'm guessing these yahoos want a separate division so they can keep hosting workshops and events.

[BYU 14]

I am all for ingenuity, but these guys found a loophole and are more upset that they lose a revenue stream, than they are that it hurts their team IMO. Plus I don't buy the, we don't have linemen thing.

By the end of the Season we had 4 starting O-linemen that were between 190 and 215 and made the Finals in the second largest division in AZ, because we are blessed with a great O-line Coach and our kids work hard. We were outsized in pretty much every game we played and did just fine.

Piedmont needs to hire an O-line Coach and play football, not smear the queer.

[Senator]

IT IS DEAD.

Changes in Rules 7-2-5 and 2-14-2 clarify the numbering-exception rule from when it was originally approved in 1982.

“The definition of a scrimmage-kick formation was clarified to differentiate formations that have been used traditionally for attempting a field goal or kick try from those used for a punt,” Colgate said. “In addition, the circumstances under which the numbering exception can be utilized have been changed to clarify what can be done on first, second, third and fourth downs.”

[Young Drachma]

Wow. Well, I bet they're crying in their milk now.

Maybe they'll quit football and I can woo them to toccer, where they can create an A-11 that changes the game forever. lol...of course, there are only 8 players on the field at a time...but hey, who needs rules?

[kcchief19]

The logic behind banning the A-11 is obtuse.

"It was unethical for them to use a loophole in the rules to run this offense," said Mike Webb, the supervisor of football officials for the West Virginia Secondary Schools Activities Commission who is on the NFHS football rules committee. "This takes away the deception."

Deception? Uh, isn't that the POINT of football? Without deception, aren't you just lining up 11 guys and running into each other to see who is strongest? And isn't that called rugby?

I never saw the problem with this. The forward pass was a loophole too. Are we going to ban fake field goals and punts next?

From the beginning, this seemed like the people against this were: (a) high school coaches who couldn't figure out how to stop it; or (b) traditional high school coaches who were so afraid their wishbone offense was going to get replaced more and more spreads. If these coaches would figure out a way to prevent 5-WR formations, I bet they'd do it too.

Disappointing they decided to change the rule. Defenses would have caught up eventually.

[SFL Cat]

Probably just as well it's banned. Honestly, I think this A-11 thing would have worked for some high school and small college programs, especially if said program had smaller, but more athletic players. But I think this thing folds like a card house against a D1 defense with good speed....and in the pros....ha!

That said, I think part of football's success as a sport has been because of innovations in strategy on both offense and defense. I think if you make things too rigid in the sport, it becomes baseball, which is essentially the same game it was 100 years ago (Not trying to knock baseball, but football did overtake baseball in popularity with the public for this very reason IMO).

I say if they aren't violating rules, let teams use it.

[Poli]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

I am all for ingenuity, but these guys found a loophole and are more upset that they lose a revenue stream, than they are that it hurts their team IMO. Plus I don't buy the, we don't have linemen thing.

By the end of the Season we had 4 starting O-linemen that were between 190 and 215 and made the Finals in the second largest division in AZ, because we are blessed with a great O-line Coach and our kids work hard. We were outsized in pretty much every game we played and did just fine.

Piedmont needs to hire an O-line Coach and play football, not smear the queer.

I could buy that argument from smaller schools, actually. The biggest kid on our offensive line my junior year was 250. After that we went 200, 180, 180, 160.

[RainMaker]

Decent piece by ESPN on this:

Michael Weinreb: Banning the A-11 offense is a bad idea - ESPN Page 2

Kind of funny to see so many people butthurt over coaches who were innovative and smart. Seems that if a big school does something innovative it's OK, but if a small school does and upsets the pecking order, rules need to be changed.

[Young Drachma]

If this were allowed, would it devolve into the CFL-ization of the NFL? Or would you see two schools on even keeled playing each other to stop it? And do A-11 schools do anything other than pass?

[/asks the guy who already created one sport...]

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Decent piece by ESPN on this:

Michael Weinreb: Banning the A-11 offense is a bad idea - ESPN Page 2

Kind of funny to see so many people butthurt over coaches who were innovative and smart. Seems that if a big school does something innovative it's OK, but if a small school does and upsets the pecking order, rules need to be changed.

Articles like this annoy me. The A-11 offense was never intended to be legal. It exploited an exception in the rules put in place to let smaller schools field a punting team with some decent athletes. The NFHS didn't make the A-11 illegal with a rule change, they clarified the exception so that it still does what was intended without allowing anything more.

The "innovators" of the A-11 found a hole in the rules that wasn't meant to be there and exploited. They followed the letter of the rules without following the spirit.

[Samdari]

I don't understand the hue and cry, here, either. Even the Weinreb piece decrying this move uses the word "loophole" about 17 times. This happens in other walks of life too - when loopholes are exploited, especially in such a public fashion and to ridiculous degrees, they are closed.

And, usually the people who were exploiting the loopholes whine about it too.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I'm guessing that the A-11 is gone from High School football in the next year or two. There were a few state associations that outlawed it this year, and there are a bunch of proposed rule changes to get it outlawed on a national level. It is a creative way to use a rule outside of its normal intent, though loopholes like that tend to get closed fairly quickly.

Got any stock tips?

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Samdari

I don't understand the hue and cry, here, either. Even the Weinreb piece decrying this move uses the word "loophole" about 17 times. This happens in other walks of life too - when loopholes are exploited, especially in such a public fashion and to ridiculous degrees, they are closed.

And, usually the people who were exploiting the loopholes whine about it too.

"NFHS heroically closes loophole" just doesn't make a good headline.

[larrymcg421]

Well, please ban the spread option. And while we're at it, please ban the no huddle offense (and there were plenty of whiners about that when Wyche introduced it). Hell, let's go back and ban that damn West Coast Offense. Or the Run N Shoot.

Lame.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Articles like this annoy me. The A-11 offense was never intended to be legal. It exploited an exception in the rules put in place to let smaller schools field a punting team with some decent athletes. The NFHS didn't make the A-11 illegal with a rule change, they clarified the exception so that it still does what was intended without allowing anything more.

The "innovators" of the A-11 found a hole in the rules that wasn't meant to be there and exploited. They followed the letter of the rules without following the spirit.

Seems to me they played by the rules. Doesn't seem much different than "loopholes" like flea flickers, halfback passes, or the swinging gate. Seems like this became an issue because it helped level the playing field.

If both schools are allowed to use it, what is the problem here?

[larrymcg421]

Yeah, how are fake punts or fake field goals not loopholes as well?

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Seems to me they played by the rules. Doesn't seem much different than "loopholes" like flea flickers, halfback passes, or the swinging gate. Seems like this became an issue because it helped level the playing field.

If both schools are allowed to use it, what is the problem here?

It is because they didn't exploit a poorly worded rule, they exploited a poorly worded exception to a rule. The rule in HS football is that you need 5 players on the lines with numbers between 50-79. These numbers make the players ineligible to go downfield on a pass play. The problem that was experienced here was that many HS kids who play the line were not athletic/coordinated enough to be a long snapper. This made punts and placekicks very difficult at this level. The NFHS solution to the problem was to add an exception for the kicking formation to eliminate the numbering rule. This allowed a QB or some other "skill" position to play as a long snapper. All teams were now given a reasonable chance to execute a punt or a placekick.

The A-11 designers used this numbering exception in a way that wasn't intended. They were clever to find the loophole, but this wasn't an intended use of the loophole. When the NFHS corrected this, they didn't change a rule, they just added more specific language to the exception to make it do what was intended.

Flea flickers, halfback passes and the swinging gate aren't loopholes. The rules - as I understand them - have always used language carefully to not identify a position when they talk about a "passer" to allow a number of positions to fill that role.

I wouldn't have a problem with the A-11 if they convinced enough people that it was a good idea to change the rules to allow it. It would be an evolutionary step in the game of football. Being a traditionalist, I wouldn't vote for the change though.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Yeah, how are fake punts or fake field goals not loopholes as well?

Because they are provided for in the rules. Punters are only offered protection if they go into an immediate punting motion. If they start running and then punt, the roughing rules change. Placekick holders have rules specifying the fact that even though they receive the ball with a knee down, they can get up and run. There is also a rule that they can leave the knee to catch a high snap and are not immediately down if they drop right back to the knee. These aren't loopholes because there are rules governing how they can be done. Big difference.

[Young Drachma]

The forward pass is bullshit.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

The forward pass is bullshit.

Remind me to buy you a Beer if we ever meet up.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

From the beginning, this seemed like the people against this were: (a) high school coaches who couldn't figure out how to stop it; or (b) traditional high school coaches who were so afraid their wishbone offense was going to get replaced more and more spreads. If these coaches would figure out a way to prevent 5-WR formations, I bet they'd do it too.

You forgot C. Those of us who officiate the games. Officiating an A-11 game is a nightmare. We had a couple of schools work with it some in pre-season scrimmages.

You need to have a very good team to run this correctly. This wasn't going to be something that leveled the playing field for small/bad teams in general. 99% of the high schools in the country didn't have the talent and 99.9% aren't coached well enough to run it effectively.

I can tell you without a doubt that if I was working the majority of my games with teams running the A-11 my officiating career would be over. Tracking eligible receivers is one of the hardest parts of the game with traditional offenses. We watched some tapes last season, I can't even imagine how many mistakes an average/below-average crew would make in an A-11 game.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

The logic behind banning the A-11 is obtuse.

Deception? Uh, isn't that the POINT of football?

Pretty much every rule is written to take deception out of the game. That's why there are rules about how many can be in the huddle, that players have to coming within the numbers on every play, substitution rules, set formations, eligible numbers, etc.

I threw out my 2008 rulebook but I'm pretty sure there is a rule that anything that isn't written as a rule but is intentional deceptive is against the rules .

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

I threw out my 2008 rulebook but I'm pretty sure there is a rule that anything that isn't written as a rule but is intentional deceptive is against the rules .

That is correct but I have never seen it called.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

I can tell you without a doubt that if I was working the majority of my games with teams running the A-11 my officiating career would be over. Tracking eligible receivers is one of the hardest parts of the game with traditional offenses. We watched some tapes last season, I can't even imagine how many mistakes an average/below-average crew would make in an A-11 game.

Especially because you maybe have 10 seconds by the time the team breaks the huddle till the ball is snapped. Most teams don't hurry to the line so you sill have kids in limbo whether they are on or off the line and don't get set until the last possible moment. So between that, counting the men on the line, watching for false starts/offsides, illegal motion/shifts...it just adds another headache for the linesman and line judge.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Flea flickers, halfback passes and the swinging gate aren't loopholes. The rules - as I understand them - have always used language carefully to not identify a position when they talk about a "passer" to allow a number of positions to fill that role.

But yet the rules are careful to identify which positions can be "receivers". The question is: why? Any reason other than tradition/history?

I mean, why must we have a center, two guards, and two tackles?

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

But yet the rules are careful to identify which positions can be "receivers". The question is: why? Any reason other than tradition/history?

I mean, why must we have a center, two guards, and two tackles?

You don't need to have those positions. The rules require at least 7 on the line (not exactly 7). Eligible receivers include everyone off the line and the people on the ends of the line. There is also a numbering restriction to help identify who is eligible and who isn't. If you want to split the Tackle away from the Guard and put a receiver in the gap and off the line, I believe you can. If you want the center to be the end with all the other linemen on the same side, you can - though the center is only an eligible receiver if he is wearing an eligible number.

As far as the rule outlawing anything that is obviously meant as deception...I don't know how many times it is called during a game, but it has been used as the inspiration for changing rules to identify obviously deceptive practices. Things like the "missing tee" play or any other play where you try to trick the defense into not realizing a snap is coming have been declared illegal using this justification.

[Passacaglia]

This actually seems more like the future of rugby, rather than the future of football.

[RainMaker]

Isn't the whole point of football deception? Otherwise wouldn't the team just line up and tell the defense where the play was going? Why not uproar over the playaction pass?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Isn't the whole point of football deception? Otherwise wouldn't the team just line up and tell the defense where the play was going? Why not uproar over the playaction pass?

I guess that's the rationale behind my question. Now, I can understand requiring a certain number on the line, otherwise you could/would end up with the offense having a big unfair advantage (i.e. way too much chaos prior to the snap), but is there any other reason besides tradition/history that we limit the number of eligible receivers at all? I mean, the defense has 11 players as well.

[Crim]

Yeah, I don't think it's fair for the offense to have a secret playcall in their huddle, and the defense just has to react to whatever happens.

[BrianD]

I think the point is that deception while the ball is live is OK while deception before the ball becomes live is not. The deception part of the rules seem to say that there will be a pretty well organized way to handle the between-play time and the start of play. Once play is going, deception is fine.

And before it comes up, I'm not sure why the defense is allowed to be deceptive before the snap. Apparently somewhere it was decided that the defense wouldn't gain as much of an advantage as the offense.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I guess that's the rationale behind my question. Now, I can understand requiring a certain number on the line, otherwise you could/would end up with the offense having a big unfair advantage (i.e. way too much chaos prior to the snap), but is there any other reason besides tradition/history that we limit the number of at all? I mean, the defense has 11 players as well.

Well, the whole idea of a "line of scrimmage" is what makes it football. Eliminate that, and you are really just playing a completely different sport.

Many variations of the advance the ball to the goal game have all players technically eligible to recieve the ball - soccer, rugby, lacrosse, ultimate frisbee (toccer?).

I think if you want to keep football football, there need to be some rules the preserve the structure of the line of scrimmate. This offense (and the idea of not limiting the number of eligible receivers) clearly takes that away, and IMO, out of the realm of being football altogether.

[Young Drachma]

What's a better material for a football than the hard leather they use now?

[Young Drachma]

California High School's Offensive Scheme Adds Randomness to Football: Scientific American

[BrianD]

If an opposing team can study previous games and determine what you are likely to run in certain situations, they can be better prepared to stop you. "If you are making random choices, it's harder to respond," Ayres explains. "A-11 offers a kind of controlled randomness."

Anyone else see the stupidity of this logic?

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

But yet the rules are careful to identify which positions can be "receivers". The question is: why? Any reason other than tradition/history?

I mean, why must we have a center, two guards, and two tackles?

You don't need to have a center, 2 guards and 2 tackles. You just need to have 7 players on the line.

[lynchjm24]

I think that you guys are severely underrating the effect that officials had in getting this rule changed.

Officials HATE the A-11. We have a voice in the rules.