2nd Down Kick -You make the call

[younggun]

2nd and 10 at the B-10 with time about to run out in the 4th quarter. Team A runs its FG unit on to the field to win the ball game. Team A's FG unit has zero 50-79 players. Team A gets set up in a legal scrimmage kick formation and kicks the game winning FG.... problem?

[ncwingman]

 

Now, are the R/U going to check/remember that it's only 2nd down and remember to flag the formation that would have been legal on 4th down?

 

[Martin Kiff]

As long as they kick it, they are good.  If they run a fake then the problemo's start. 

[ncwingman]

As long as they kick it, they are good.  If they run a fake then the problemo's start. 

In a scrimmage kick formation on 1st-3rd downs, you need at least 4 players wearing 50-79 on the line of scrimmage -- only the snapper (between the ends) may be another number.

If not in a scrimmage kick formation, you need at least 5 players on the line numbered 50-79.

On fourth down or a kick try down, you can do whatever you want.

What you do after the ball is snapped is irrelevant.

[BoBo]

Illegal Formation, 5 yard penalty against the kicking team

[Curious]

Another unnecessarily overly-confusing rule

[VALJ]

Another unnecessarily overly-confusing rule

...that was necessary to counter the "All 11" gimmick that was a minor fad a few years back.

[younggun]

Illegal Formation, 5 yard penalty against the kicking team

Illegal Numbering

[younggun]

...that was necessary to counter the "All 11" gimmick that was a minor fad a few years back.

All the rule had to be was "if you use numbering exceptions, you must have a legal scrimmage kick during the down."

I just think an unintended consequence is a team trying to kick a FG on 2nd down as time runs out is now a foul (if they use numbering exceptions) 

[Atlanta Blue]

All the rule had to be was "if you use numbering exceptions, you must have a legal scrimmage kick during the down."

And thus remove all fake kicks from the game.  And suppose the punter drops the ball and never kicks it.  Or the snap is wide on a FG and the holder can't reach it.  Those all become illegal numbering fouls under your rule.

[ncwingman]

Illegal Numbering

Or as the PA guy will say, "False Start"

[younggun]

And thus remove all fake kicks from the game.  And suppose the punter drops the ball and never kicks it.  Or the snap is wide on a FG and the holder can't reach it.  Those all become illegal numbering fouls under your rule.

Sorry... I meant on downs 1-3.

[Atlanta Blue]

Sorry... I meant on downs 1-3.

Still doesn't work, for the same reasons.  You can't require there to be a scrimmage kick.  But you can require them to be in a scrimmage kick formation, which the rule already does.

[Ump33]

Does not the NCAA rule on "free numbering" state something like ... free numbering is allowed if it is apparent that a scrimmage kick may be attempted?

If the NFHS would have made a statement similar to "it is apparent that a scrimmage kick may be attempted" then the current requirements would be simpler. Also, they would have succeeded in eliminating the loop hole used by the A11.

[Ralph Damren]

Does not the NCAA rule on "free numbering" state something like ... free numbering is allowed if it is apparent that a scrimmage kick may be attempted?

If the NFHS would have made a statement similar to "it is apparent that a scrimmage kick may be attempted" then the current requirements would be simpler. Also, they would have succeeded in eliminating the loop hole used by the A11.

That was the Method that the NCAA applied that prevented the -not be confused with A1 Sauce -offense to be used in their house. That was also my proposal to the NFHS when rule change time came rolling along. The subcommittee handling that debated for 4 hours and came up with what we now have. Apparently my proposal was too simple.

[Curious]

Like I said: "another unnecessarily overly-confusing rule"   

[Atlanta Blue]

That was the Method that the NCAA applied that prevented the -not be confused with A1 Sauce -offense to be used in their house. That was also my proposal to the NFHS when rule change time came rolling along. The subcommittee handling that debated for 4 hours and came up with what we now have. Apparently my proposal was too simple.

Ralph:
You know better than I, but I have "heard" there is a "pride of publication", meaning that there are a fair number of people on the committee that want to make sure they don't don't it the NCAA way.  They go out of their way to make sure they aren't just duplicating the NCAA rule.

If true, sometimes that may be the better thing for FED, but sometimes, they may be over complicating something or reinventing the wheel.  This is one of those cases where simply adopting the NCAA rule would have been the better course of action.

[J12]

Or as the PA guy will say, "False Start"

And then the fans yell at the "refs" for allowing the play to continue after a false start.

[Atlanta Blue]

And then the fans yell at the "refs" for allowing the play to continue after a false start.

More likely to say, "Illegal Procedure"!

[maybrefguy]

So let's be clear - if they kick it on 2nd down and don't have 5 guys numbered 50-79, is it a penalty?  The way the rule is worded it makes it sound like it should be a penalty. 

[BrendanP]

Does not the NCAA rule on "free numbering" state something like ... free numbering is allowed if it is apparent that a scrimmage kick may be attempted?

If the NFHS would have made a statement similar to "it is apparent that a scrimmage kick may be attempted" then the current requirements would be simpler. Also, they would have succeeded in eliminating the loop hole used by the A11.

Yeah that's what I thought. That's one complaint I've heard from my varsity friends around here is that some of these rules are too broad and don't account for the fact that the first rule of football is that CRAP happens. One guy I know that works DII NCAA games says he wishes the NCAA would have added an exception to the ten second runoff injury rule for situations when it's obvious he's not faking. Apparently he had a game where one player had to be strapped to a backboard and hauled away in an ambulance, and there's apparently no provision to waive the runoff even in that situation.

[Atlanta Blue]

So let's be clear - if they kick it on 2nd down and don't have 5 guys numbered 50-79, is it a penalty?  The way the rule is worded it makes it sound like it should be a penalty.

No, not necessarily.  On 1st-3rd down, they are allowed ONE exception if that is the snapper.  He may not be on the end of the line, and thus in an ineligible receiver.

[Rulesman]

Ralph:
You know better than I, but I have "heard" there is a "pride of publication", meaning that there are a fair number of people on the committee that want to make sure they don't don't it the NCAA way.  They go out of their way to make sure they aren't just duplicating the NCAA rule.

Term limits might take care of that problem.

[Kalle]

Apparently he had a game where one player had to be strapped to a backboard and hauled away in an ambulance, and there's apparently no provision to waive the runoff even in that situation.

The opposing team captain can decline the runoff option. NCAA rule 3-3-5-f.

[maybrefguy]

AB - thank you.  That's what I thought but I wanted to make sure.