This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
A-11 offense article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Wikipedia Editors need to know there is NO copyright infringement in this article. However, there is a person deliberately posting information wrongly and in a negative light.
Every single item posted in the article below is 100% true.
See below in "stick to facts only"
Please let us know how to properly Report EDITOR ZENG8R, he is DELIBERATELY Not Reporting correct FACTS AND TRUTHFUL INFORMATION AND NOT ALLOWING THE FULL INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ARTICLE TO BE POSTED? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.8.73 ( talk) 16:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
These posted items have been checked for accuracy and there is no copyright violation, please do not alter these facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.34.109 ( talk) 16:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
much of the original article has been removed due to a copyright violation. That material was copied from here. Please WP:COPYVIO for more information.-- Rtphokie ( talk) 02:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
There is NO cutting and pasting from web, just facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.34.109 ( talk) 19:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
THERE IS NO COPYING FROM ELSEWHERE BEING DONE, JUST FACTS. STOP CHANGING IT THANK YOU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.34.109 ( talk) 19:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I've been noticing the discussions about copyright at A-11 offense. Other regular editors are probably more aware of the particulars. I've put semiprotection on the page, and I'd be grateful if anyone who has been following this could remove any material there which is still a copyright violation. The 31-hour block of the IP seems not to have got his attention, but he can't edit through semiprotection. He will be forced to discuss any changes that he thinks are needed. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 17:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you.
Besides the copyright issues, there's another big problem with that version of the article: the sources do not always agree with the text. For example, here are a few quotes from that ESPN the Magazine article cited at the end of the NFL section:
The A-11 isn't close to legal in the NFL, and probably never will be...
At the moment, NFL rules stand in the way. There's no scrimmage kick exception on the books. And as a result of arcane regulations, any lineman reporting as an eligible receiver has to sit out the next play—unless there's a break in the action, like a team time-out—before coming back in as an ineligible blocker...
Still, Tennessee's coaching staff has considered at least one modified application of Piedmont's creation, for third-and-short at the goal line... Curiously, Titans coach Jeff Fisher, the other co-chair of the NFL's Competition Committee, says he has no interest in modifying the rules to allow for a full-blown A-11, because it would alter the game too radically...
What I gathered from the article is that very specific ideas from the A-11 are applicable in the NFL, but the full-blown version is not currently legal and is unlikely to be legal any time soon. Your pasted text is full of interpretations that either go far beyond or directly contradict statements in ESPN article, especially Jeff Fisher's opinion on the A-11. This violates wikipedia's no original research principle, which basically states that information must come from a credible, unbiased 3rd-party source, NOT from your opinion or my opinion or the opinion of the distributors of A-11 instructional DVDs.
Some of the info in that oft-pasted text is ok, and I'll add it later today in reworded form if no one else does so first. But PLEASE stop copying and pasting that whole big spiel and accusing others of deliberately doing anything sinister. That's a poor way to get your point across. Thanks... Zeng8r ( talk) 19:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Zeng8r: Your deliberately talking about wanting to sell dvd's is disgusting on your part, and worse yet, you have appointed yourself as some type of football guru who deliberately witholds facts from these public articles. Please put the entire article up as listed, it is fact, and it is referenced.
HOW DO WE REPORT EDITOR ZENG8R FOR DELIBERATELY DELETING FACTS AND TRUTHFUL INFORMATION AND NOT ALLOWING THE CORRECT AND FULL INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ARTICLE TO BE POSTED? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.12.176 ( talk) 06:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
WE ARE NOT CUTTING AND PASTING FROM THE WEB, JUST WRITING FACTS AND INFO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.12.176 ( talk) 06:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
EDITOR ZENG8R is DELIBERATELY Not Reporting correct FACTS AND TRUTHFUL INFORMATION AND NOT ALLOWING THE FULL INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ARTICLE TO BE POSTED? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.12.176 ( talk) 06:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I've never messed with other people's talk page comments. However, since our IP user had repeatedly wiped everything, I went back to previous versions of this page to rescue deleted discussion. Sorry for mucking around like this, and excuse me if I missed anything. I've never seen such a messed up talk page and felt that something needed to be done. Zeng8r ( talk) 00:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Please let us know how to properly Report EDITOR ZENG8R, he is DELIBERATELY Not Reporting correct FACTS AND TRUTHFUL INFORMATION AND NOT ALLOWING THE FULL INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ARTICLE TO BE POSTED? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.8.73 ( talk) 16:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Whoever did the restoration of the Article did a very good job, thank you. Now this baloney talk page can be cleared and there is no debate or apparent conflict of interest. Well done! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.8.73 ( talk) 16:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Some members of our team did the article writing and are following it in our journalism class too, along with other stories on this offense. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.8.73 ( talk) 22:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Our group is not totally pleased with your deliberate attempt at "hiding" the fact that there is a petition drive going on at a national level by teams in many states and California to keep the offense going for teams like ours, and other teams like ours. It would have been more honest of you Zeng8r to have listed that point, because there is a long way to go, and to purposefully delete that fact is not acknowledging the truth. But, since you are determined to do so, we have no choice but to succumb to your editorial power at this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.34.116 ( talk) 19:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Here is the 3rd Party article that also tells about Petition Drive and lists them both.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=weinreb/090302 —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.110.37.7 (
talk)
18:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
From the link you provided:
In the meantime, Bryan and Humphries are not mandating that other schools adopt their methods; all they are asking for is the freedom to continue to develop their experiment in peace. They recently petitioned the CIF...
They are the creators of the A-11, and that's who the article says is petitioning the CIF. You have to go by the sources. Zeng8r ( talk) 19:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Zeng8r, please read the petition at www.A11Offense.com it is signed by the Piedmont High Principal —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.110.37.7 (
talk)
21:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Legality at various levels (This is how your edited post should read regarding high schools using the offense)
High School As mentioned, the A-11 offense was designed by a high school coach who used a "loophole" in the rules concerning allowable formations to design an every-down offense. As other schools in the States of, CA, OR, WA, FL, AZ, IL, AL, AR, VA, etc, began using the A-11, others called the system "an unsporting act" and "outside of the spirit of the rule code."[6] Consequently, high school associations in North Carolina, West Virginia, Louisiana, and the District of Columbia banned the use of the A-11 for the 2008 season.[7]
In February 2009, the National Federation of State High School Associations rules committee voted 46-2 to close the loophole allowing the linemen-free formations featured in the A-11. The system's creators have petitioned the California Interscholastic Federation to allow use of the offense over the next three seasons on a experimental basis. No decision has yet been made.[6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.8.207 ( talk) 23:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
This had been tagged for nine months. If someone can find sources that back this assertion, please reinsert the content. hbdragon88 ( talk) 23:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
The article says "The A-11 still must abide by rules which cap the number of eligible receivers at five (maximum six if the quarterback hands the ball off or laterals to an ineligible receiver who then passes the ball). However, it is unclear which players will be eligible until just before the snap, ... "
For those of us who do not know football well, how is it determined which 5 are eligible receivers? 199.86.18.156 ( talk) 05:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The concept is difficult to explain to non-football fans without getting into some deep jargon, but I tried to clarify that section a bit more. Feel free to streamline it some more. -- Zeng8r ( talk) 23:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 22:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 22:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 22:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on A-11 offense. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on A-11 offense. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on A-11 offense. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
The article states that the NFL "imposed an additional rule to discourage teams from placing players with eligible numbers at an ineligible position (Bill Belichick had used such a strategy during select games in the 2014 season); as of the 2015 season, players with eligible numbers must line up in a position that makes it obvious that they are ineligible." So the NFL rule is to discourage placing players with eligible numbers at ineligible positions. Therefore, as of 2015, the rule states that players with eligible numbers must line up in an ineligible position. This is obviously contradictory. Jeff in CA ( talk) 20:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)