Scrimage Kick Formation or Not ...

[Ump33]

PAT attempt and team A lines up with Kicker and Holder at the required distance. The holder crouches down but does not put his knee(s) on the ground and all team a linemen are numbered in the 80's. Is this a legal Scrimmage Kick Formation?

2-14-2 … A scrimmage kick formation is one in which no player is in position to receive a hand-to-hand snap from between the snapper’s legs, and at the snap, either:
a. A player is in position with a knee on the ground 7 yards or more behind the line of scrimmage, in position to be the holder and receive the long snap and with another player 3 yards or less behind that player in position to attempt a place kick, or
b. A player is 10 yards or more behind the line of scrimmage and in position to receive the long snap

[Atlanta Blue]

No.  Without a knee on the ground by the holder, the offense cannot legally use the numbering exception.

[HLinNC]

a. A player is in position with a knee on the ground...

Its pretty clear that it is a required segment of the rule.

[Harry]

I remember having this conversation with my interpreter last year when the rule change came in.  It was felt that the kicker is typically at least 10yds back, so it's an argument over nothing.

[Atlanta Blue]

I remember having this conversation with my interpreter last year when the rule change came in.  It was felt that the kicker is typically at least 10yds back, so it's an argument over nothing.

1.  If you kicker is that far behind the holder, he isn't lined up right (and yes, I coach kickers), and the "FG" exception does not apply as he is more than 3 yards away from the holder.
2.  The 10 yd exception on which you are relying requires him to be in a position to receive the snap.  If he is 2-3 yards off to the side of the holder, he is not ina position to receive the snap.

Why does your interpreter (as well as Georgia's) want to circumvent the rule?  Tell the holder to get his knee on the ground if they want the exception.

When a holder isn't putting his knee on the ground, he's trying to play "both ends against the middle".  He doesn't want the restrictions of being a holder (i.e., throwing from that position), but he wants the benefits of being a holder (protection and the numbering exception).  He gets one or the other, not both.

[LarryW60]

1.  If you kicker is that far behind the holder, he isn't lined up right (and yes, I coach kickers), and the "FG" exception does not apply as he is more than 3 yards away from the holder.
2.  The 10 yd exception on which you are relying requires him to be in a position to receive the snap.  If he is 2-3 yards off to the side of the holder, he is not ina position to receive the snap.

1. Where in the previous post do you read that the kicker is 10 yards behind the holder?  "10 yards back" means 10 yards behind the line of scrimmage.
2. Why not?  Are you saying a long snapper can't snap at a slight angle to the deep player?

[Atlanta Blue]

1. Where in the previous post do you read that the kicker is 10 yards behind the holder?  "10 yards back" means 10 yards behind the line of scrimmage.

I never said the kicker is 10 yards behind the holder.  I said if properly positioned, he isn't 10 yards behind the LOS either, assuming the holder is seven yards back (typical for HS).  Of course, I will be the first to admit there are a lot of kickers not properly coached in where they should be.

2. Why not?  Are you saying a long snapper can't snap at a slight angle to the deep player?

I'm saying that if there is a holder 7 yards directly behind the snapper, and another player a few steps away an off to the side of that holder, then no, the other player is NOT in a position to receive the snap.  You must use some common sense, not a parsing of the book as to what MIGHT be possible.

The numbering exception was written to allow non-lineman numbers on the line in punting and FG kicking situations.  Because of the infamous A-11 abomination, the writers had to rewrite the rule trying to be even more specific.  In that specificity, they required the holder to have his knee on the ground for the exception to be usable ina FG situation.  Now officials, some of whom didn't even know that was a requirement, don't want to enforce it, and are trying any word smithing to try to not have to enforce it.  They are mixing and matching the "punt" and "FG" provisions of the rule.  Why?  The kicking team has a choice to make: have a holder with his knee on the ground in FG situations (which carries certain restrictions), or don't use the numbering exception.  Allowing the exception without the holder's knee down is destroying the intent of this rule just as the A-11 did.

[AlUpstateNY]

As we've seen many times it can be extremely difficult to craft language to address every conceivable variation of even a clearly intended rule.  The bottom line always has been, is and will continue to be; the field officials judgment, common sense and an understanding of the intent of a particular rule. 

That may not prove to always be a perfectly drawn "line in the sand" or guaranteed solution, but it's the best anyone has yet to come up with and is what it is.

[LarryW60]

Hmm.  I guess it depends on what is meant by "kicker and holder lined up the required distance".  If the player impersonating the holder is at the 10 yard line and the person impersonating the kicker is INSIDE the 13 yard line, then even though they are at the "required distances" for a place kick, this is not a valid scrimmage kick formation because the player impersonating the holder doesn't have his knee on the ground.  For this formation to be valid and the entire line to be legally in the 80's, the "kicker" would have to be OUTSIDE the 13 yard line (aka punt formation) and we wouldn't care where the player impersonating the holder is.  This is one the White Hat is going to have to be sharp about.

EDIT: Assuming the White Hat is with the kicker on tries in your mechanics, that is.

[Atlanta Blue]

For this formation to be valid and the entire line to be legally in the 80's, the "kicker" would have to be OUTSIDE the 13 yard line (aka punt formation) and we wouldn't care where the player impersonating the holder is.  This is one the White Hat is going to have to be sharp about.

That's the problem: if there is a holder bending down squatting down 7 yards straight behind the snapper, I don't care if the kicker is 10, 15, or 20 yards back, he is not in a "punt formation".  He is not in a position to take the snap.  The team has "declared" they are attempting to be in a FG formation, not a punt formation.  By saying the kicker is 10 yards behind the line, you are allowing them to mix the two formations, and that was never the intent of the rule rewrite.

For it to be a legal kick formation, you have to have a holder ON HIS KNEE with a kicker three yards or less behind him, OR a potential kicker 10 or more yards behind the line in a position to take the snap.  If you simulate one and claim it's the other, that makes you Coach Bryant all over again. 

[LarryW60]

That's the problem: if there is a holder bending down squatting down 7 yards straight behind the snapper, I don't care if the kicker is 10, 15, or 20 yards back, he is not in a "punt formation".  He is not in a position to take the snap.  The team has "declared" they are attempting to be in a FG formation, not a punt formation.  By saying the kicker is 10 yards behind the line, you are allowing them to mix the two formations, and that was never the intent of the rule rewrite.

For it to be a legal kick formation, you have to have a holder ON HIS KNEE with a kicker three yards or less behind him, OR a potential kicker 10 or more yards behind the line in a position to take the snap.  If you simulate one and claim it's the other, that makes you Coach Bryant all over again. 

I'm curious as to why a back squatting down in the backfield negates any other back from being in a position to take the snap.  If the snapper can snap the ball directly to a back 11 yards from the line of scrimmage, then the deep back obviously "was in a position to take the snap".  If the squatter was truly trying to simulate being a holder, he wouldn't be "directly" behind the center anyways.  He'd be offset by one body-width, true?  So there's no legitimate difference between a back offset by one body width and a back offset by three yards.  NEITHER of them is "directly behind the snapper".

If there was a back at least 10 yards behind the line of scrimmage and in a position where he could take a long snap, then I don't see why it's not a legal scrimmage kick formation.  If he's lined up inside of 10 yards from the LOS and the "holder" doesn't have a knee down, then I see a problem with it not being a legal scrimmage kick formation and therefore the numbering rule exception cannot be used.

Miscellaneous stuff: If the team is trying to use the numbering exception on an apparent try by kick, as a defensive coach I would be screaming "FAKE KICK!" before the snap.  Why would K need the numbering exception for a routine try by kick?

[Atlanta Blue]

I'm curious as to why a back squatting down in the backfield negates any other back from being in a position to take the snap.  If the snapper can snap the ball directly to a back 11 yards from the line of scrimmage, then the deep back obviously "was in a position to take the snap".  If the squatter was truly trying to simulate being a holder, he wouldn't be "directly" behind the center anyways.  He'd be offset by one body-width, true?

No, he is lined up so the point where he is going to place the ball is directly behind the center, meaning his body is over the snapper's right leg (for a right footed kicker).  If he’s a “body wide”, he is out of position but 3’.  True, we do have one offset formation (when we are wide on the hash), where the holder does move over one body width, but in that case, the kicker is even further offset from the snapper.

  So there's no legitimate difference between a back offset by one body width and a back offset by three yards.  NEITHER of them is "directly behind the snapper".

Of course there is.  You fully understand a FG formation and a punt formation.  The rules makers TRIED to put those into words that defeated the A-11 offense, as they were too general before.  But now you are trying to put them back into those "general" terms rather than recognizing the formations for what they are.

If there was a back at least 10 yards behind the line of scrimmage and in a position where he could take a long snap, then I don't see why it's not a legal scrimmage kick formation.

OK, it's a try, and the kicker stands 14 yards behind the snapper.  By definition, that's a scrimmage kick formation.  In reality, who is going to line up in a  “punt” formation on a try?

If there is a holder 7 yards back with his knee on the ground straight behind the snapper, then the offset kicker isn’t in a position to take the snap, even if his back foot happens to be more than 10 yards from the LOS.  Shoot, my snapper could get the ball out to an H back if he had to (he actually does ona swinging gate formation), but that doesn’t mean the H back was in a position to take the snap.

Accept the fact that the rules writers were trying to define a FG and a punt formation as generally as they could, and stop trying to merge the two!

Miscellaneous stuff: If the team is trying to use the numbering exception on an apparent try by kick, as a defensive coach I would be screaming "FAKE KICK!" before the snap.  Why would K need the numbering exception for a routine try by kick?

Because often, your best long snapper is not a typical interior lineman.  One season, our best long snapper was our quarterback!

[LarryW60]

You keep bringing up the A-11 offense, but this has nothing to do with the A-11 offense.  This is a question of whether a formation meets the definition of a scrimmage kick formation and the answer is "yes" IF the deep back is at least 10 yards behind the LOS and CAN receive a long snap.  The rule doesn't say he MUST receive the long snap, only that he CAN.  The rule doesn't say he must be DIRECTLY behind the snapper.  That appears to be requirement you've pulled out of your posterior.  As described, the deep back CAN receive the long snap and this would be a valid scrimmage kick formation as long as the deep back was > 10 yards from the LOS.  Unlike the A-11, this is a deception that is easily monitored by the officals and, if the defensive coaches were doing their jobs, could easily be coached to team's special team defenses.  This is no different than having a quarterback in shotgun and snapping to the up-back... I take that back.  It's even LESS deceptive because the defense would be clued in prior to the snap that something was not normal.

[Atlanta Blue]

The rule says nothing about the deep back CAN receive the snap.  Shoot, using that criterion, ANY back CAN receive the snap.  CAN means legal to do so.  It says he must be IN A POSITION to receive it.  If he is three yards off to the side while someone else is closer and directly behind the center, then the closer, direct person is the one in a position to receive the snap, not the deeper, wider back.  You are interpreting the rule to say ANY person eligible to receive the snap is in a position to receive it.

The reason I keep bringing up the A-11 offense is because that is EXACTLY what the current writing of the rule was designed to prevent.  And it was written to describe two, UNIQUE formations, a FG formation and a scrimmage kick formation.  It was not meant to be a blend of the two.  And yes, I am SURE of the intent because I sat with one of the Rules Committee members before he went to Indy, and we discussed this very thing.  Now, the final wording became a generalized bastardization of what we discussed, and therein lies the problem.  But read the rule, it says "either", and goes on to describe two DIFFERENT formations.

You are saying if ANY back lines up 10 yards back, then it is a scrimmage kick formation, regardless of the position of the other backs, as long as they are not under center.  That was NOT the intent.  The intent was to describe two unique formations.  If a team is a FG formation, then the holder must have his knee on the ground, and there must be a kicker no more than 3 yards behind him in a position to attempt a place kick.  If they are in a punt situation, the punter must be 10 yards behind the line.  That is the rule in the vernacular.  Unfortunately, they didn't write the rule in the vernacular, they wrote it to conform with other definitions, and in a generalized form, thinking that any official with some common sense would not confuse the two formations.

Let's take your definition to the next level.  QB in a shotgun formation 5 yards back, tailback 6 yards behind him.  By your definition, this is a scrimmage kick formation, because there is a back more than 10 yards from the line that COULD take the snap.  After all, what prevents the QB from stepping aside after the count and letting the ball fly back to the tailback, or the snapper from just snapping over the QB's head?

If that were true, Coach Bryant would be back in business!

[bama_stripes]

If that were true, Coach Bryant would be back in business!

Some Atlantans still haven't forgiven Coach Bryant for running Tech out of the SEC.

[Atlanta Blue]

Some Atlantans still haven't forgiven Coach Bryant for running Tech out of the SEC.

Hey, I work for the UGA football team.  I wish he had run them straight into the ocean.

Of course, we do need an annual whipping boy.  Had a tough enough time beating anyone else of substance last year!