|
Post by withtwoflakes on Dec 12, 2008 17:45:46 GMT
An update to the rookie training manual is being undertaken by a working party of BAFRA members. It is a task that is needed - for one thing, most of the MM references are now wrong since the MM was updated in 2008.
Doubtless there are other areas of the rookie manual that need work too. If you have used it recently to train a rookie or are a rookie who was trained with it in the last couple of years, feel free to give us any feedback you can, either on this thread or Email me.
Regards, Steve T
|
|
|
Post by Ed Herk on Dec 23, 2008 13:36:59 GMT
Just to amplify what Steve said since I am chairing the group responsible for this.
When training guys recently I have noticed that a lot of mechanics manual references were automatically made out of date by the new version of the MM that was released last year. Input is therefore welcomed.
There's also a picture which shows an illegal formation - can anyone spot it?
|
|
|
Post by New(ish) Ref on Dec 24, 2008 19:40:28 GMT
There's also a picture which shows an illegal formation - can anyone spot it? Had a quick scan through the online PDFs. Short answer - no.
|
|
|
Post by Ed Herk on Dec 27, 2008 18:06:26 GMT
The formation pictured in between 1.2.5 and 1.2.6 shows the right tackle uncovered and only a flanker-back on that side of the formation. On the left-hand side of the formation there is a tight-end with a split end covering him.
I THINK that the tight-end was meant to be on the right side of the formation, otherwise the tight-end is ineligible by position.
Not exactly an illegal formation but not a sensible one though!
Also noticed that the on-line version of the manual lists the directors of BAFRA as in 1999!
|
|
|
Post by New(ish) Ref on Dec 27, 2008 18:29:10 GMT
The formation pictured in between 1.2.5 and 1.2.6 shows the right tackle uncovered and only a flanker-back on that side of the formation. On the left-hand side of the formation there is a tight-end with a split end covering him. I THINK that the tight-end was meant to be on the right side of the formation, otherwise the tight-end is ineligible by position. Not exactly an illegal formation but not a sensible one though! Not if you look at the numbering in some of the later pictures. It is a 2 TE formation with an offset line. The Southern Sundevils ran something similar a few seasons back.
|
|
|
Post by Ed Herk on Jan 2, 2009 13:37:36 GMT
It looks to me like the "second" tight-end is actually meant to be split wide.
The reason I remark on the formation is that it is not usual rather than illegal and it makes the "first" tight end on the left hand side ineligible by position. That rather hints at a run to the left behind the two tight ends with the possibility of a pass to either the second tight end or the flanker-back on the right hand side of the formation (or either of the backs).
Anyway, I would have expected to see a "pro-set" formation, thats why I raised the issue in the first place.
|
|