Brazilian Noob Questions

[elewis023]

OK, thanks.

On A. R. 6-3-2-II Team A gets the ball, besides their touching violation, but A. R. 6-3-2-I states that Team B "may play the ball with the assurance that it later may elect the ball at any spot of illegal touching". So why on A. R. 6-3-2-II Team B can't get the ball on the spot of illegal touching?

An accepted penalty nullifies the illegal touching provision.

[Diablo]

On A. R. 6-3-2-II Team A gets the ball, besides their touching violation, but A. R. 6-3-2-I states that Team B "may play the ball with the assurance that it later may elect the ball at any spot of illegal touching". So why on A. R. 6-3-2-II Team B can't get the ball on the spot of illegal touching?

What is the major difference between the two ARs?
Hint:  Read 6-3-2-b.

[zys]

An accepted penalty nullifies the illegal touching provision.

What is the major difference between the two ARs?
Hint:  Read 6-3-2-b.

OK, thanks.

Now, on A. R. 6-3-2-V Team B holding penalty is declined by rule, because of the score by Team A, so the ball goes to Team B because of the illegal touching. Rule 10-2-5-a-2 says that the penalties for no-personal fouls by the nonscoring team "are not enforced on try or the succeeding try. Such penalties are declined by rule unless enforcement is made possible by illegal touching of a kick during the down". How does this enforcement works? Isn't this the case of A. R. 6-3-2-V?

[Kalle]

How does this enforcement works? Isn't this the case of A. R. 6-3-2-V?

Think basic spot. See A.R. 6-3-2-VII.

[zys]

Think basic spot. See A.R. 6-3-2-VII.

So if A20 on A. R. 6-3-2-V didn't score Team A would've kept the ball?

[Kalle]

So if A20 on A. R. 6-3-2-V didn't score Team A would've kept the ball?

Yes.

[With_Two_Flakes]

Zys - Welcome to THE best place to be for officials.

I also remember Daniel Vasques. He and I swapped a bunch of E-mails regularly for about 2 years answering his questions about Rules. It was when he was translating the Rule book during your change to NCAA rules from NFL Rules. Happy to continue where he left off if I can be of help to you. Feel free to send me a private message so we can swap E-mail addresses.

As for mechanics manuals - of course I have to agree with what dommer1 said about the BAFRA/EFAF manual. I'm the BAFRA Deputy President and I had discussions with Daniel about Brazil adopting the BAFRA/EFAF mechanics manual. Happy to continue those discussions with you. Many countries have adopted it as their countries manual, so you wouldn't be the first.

[zys]

Zys - Welcome to THE best place to be for officials.

I also remember Daniel Vasques. He and I swapped a bunch of E-mails regularly for about 2 years answering his questions about Rules. It was when he was translating the Rule book during your change to NCAA rules from NFL Rules. Happy to continue where he left off if I can be of help to you. Feel free to send me a private message so we can swap E-mail addresses.

As for mechanics manuals - of course I have to agree with what dommer1 said about the BAFRA/EFAF manual. I'm the BAFRA Deputy President and I had discussions with Daniel about Brazil adopting the BAFRA/EFAF mechanics manual. Happy to continue those discussions with you. Many countries have adopted it as their countries manual, so you wouldn't be the first.

Thank you. I would really like to use BAFRA manual here.

Continuing with my questions, when is a lineman restrict? This is quoted on the A. R.'s but I didn't found the definition of a restrict lineman.

[Kalle]

Continuing with my questions, when is a lineman restrict? This is quoted on the A. R.'s but I didn't found the definition of a restrict lineman.

See rule 7-1-3-a-4-c.

[zys]

See rule 7-1-3-a-4-c.

So it is a player between the snapper and the player on the end of the line. But is the snapper also a restricted lineman?

[Kalle]

So it is a player between the snapper and the player on the end of the line. But is the snapper also a restricted lineman?

Yes, rule 7-1-3-a-4-b.

[zys]

As we are on the topic of offensive formations, I have many doubts about this. If an offensive formation has five lineman on the LOS numbered 50-79 and A82 and A88 on the same side of the formation and both on the LOS, with A88 wider, only A88 is eligible, correct? So A82 can't go more than three yards beyond the LOS. If he does is it illegal formation or ineligible receiver downfield?

[With_Two_Flakes]

Nothing illegal about the formation, it is just not very efficient as it gives the offense a smaller number of eligible receivers. Usually it is because of a mistake by one of the receivers, but I have seen some teams in the UK who deliberately line up in formations like this for running plays. But if there is a pass that crosses the NZ and A82 does indeed go more than 3yds downfield then a foul for ineligible downfield.

Our philosophy is that the wing official should do what he can to make the formation legal. If I can move 6 inches one way and now I can see a blade of grass between them, then A88 is off the line and I wont have any fouls if a pass is thrown. At the end of the play, I'll try and let the kid know about it so they don't make the same error again. No-one comes to games to see me throw my flag.

A follow-on question is which official should be expected to see this foul?

[Grant - AR]

A follow-on question is which official should be expected to see this foul?

The line official would be the one to make this call.  He is the one who knows for certain that the receiver is covered up.  The flag should be thrown after a legal forward pass crosses the neutral zone.

[zys]

The line official would be the one to make this call.  He is the one who knows for certain that the receiver is covered up.  The flag should be thrown after a legal forward pass crosses the neutral zone.

I guess this answers my next question: on running plays there's no foul for ineligible receiver downfield, correct? Is this valid even if it is a delay run, or if the QB was looking for a receiver and, when he didn't find any, he ran?

[Grant - AR]

I guess this answers my next question: on running plays there's no foul for ineligible receiver downfield, correct? Is this valid even if it is a delay run, or if the QB was looking for a receiver and, when he didn't find any, he ran?

That is correct.  In order to have an ineligible receiver down field, there must be a legal forward pass that crosses the neutral zone.  A common screen pass play by many teams in America is one where the linemen go down field at the snap like it is a running play.  Then the QB drops back and throws a pass to a receiver at the line of scrimmage.  When executed properly, the pass is caught behind or at the line of scrimmage with linemen down field from the receiver to block for him.  None of the linemen are down field illegally because the pass doesn't cross the line of scrimmage.

Here is an example of this type of screen pass.  Watch the widest receiver and ignore the commentary.   

[yt=425,350]mxa4Vv3GUuc[/yt]

[zys]

Still on offensive formation, I've on NFL games players with ineligible numbers report to the referee as eligible and play that way. I didn't find this anyware on NCAA rules. Is this possible on NCAA?

[Birddog]

Still on offensive formation, I've on NFL games players with ineligible numbers report to the referee as eligible and play that way. I didn't find this anyware on NCAA rules. Is this possible on NCAA?

No such provison under NCAA rules.  I have had players try to report, but they were confused between rule sets. At no time can a player #50-79 be an elgible receiver to first touch the pass.

[With_Two_Flakes]

No, not possible. If you have a 50-79 number on offense then no matter what you do you are not eligible to be first to touch a forward pass (whether it crosses the NZ or not).

You are asking all the same questions that Daniel asked me a couple of years ago. I'll try and find the E-mails that he and I exchanged and send them to you, that might help some...

UPDATE
I found them real easy, already sent.

[Atlanta Blue]

Still on offensive formation, I've on NFL games players with ineligible numbers report to the referee as eligible and play that way. I didn't find this anyware on NCAA rules. Is this possible on NCAA?

NFL has a different rule.  In the NFL, they are required to have an eligible receiver on the end of the line.  Since teams often want an extra lineman rather than a receiver, the NFL allows players numberd 50-79 to report as eligible receivers on a play by play basis.  While they ARE eligible to catch a pass, most are reporting simply to comply with the eligible receiver on the end of the line rule.  With playing rosters of only 45 players, players often have to play dual roles.

Since the NCAA does not require an eligible receiver on the end of the line, the reporting exception is not a rule that has found it's way to the NCAA.  And since NCAA teams usually have far more than 45 players, so it is easier for them to find that extra blocking lineman.

[Diablo]

An offensive formation has five lineman on the LOS numbered 50-79 and A82 and A88 on the same side of the formation and both on the LOS, with A88 wider, only A88 is eligible.

Take zys formation above.  Assume A82 & A88 are on the L's side of the formation.  Now, add one receiver outside the tackle on the opposite side of the formation and 2 set backs.
Should the B key A82?

[zys]

Take zys formation above.  Assume A82 & A88 are on the L's side of the formation.  Now, add one receiver outside the tackle on the opposite side of the formation and 2 set backs.
Should the B key A82?

I believe so, but I'm not sure.

No such provison under NCAA rules.  I have had players try to report, but they were confused between rule sets. At no time can a player #50-79 be an elgible receiver to first touch the pass.

And the other way around? Is it possible? Is it legal to have an offensive formation with four lineman numbered 50-79 and one player not numbered 50-79 declare himself ineligible and play as an ineligible player? I'm referring to normal situations, not the exception stated on rules 1-4-2-b-1 and 2.

[Kalle]

And the other way around? Is it possible? Is it legal to have an offensive formation with four lineman numbered 50-79 and one player not numbered 50-79 declare himself ineligible and play as an ineligible player? I'm referring to normal situations, not the exception stated on rules 1-4-2-b-1 and 2.

Nope, it's not possible.

[zys]

Again with offensive formations... A player in lateral motion at the snap, facing the opponent's goal line, with his head breaking the plane of the waistline of the snapper, is on the line of scrimmage?

[NVFOA_Ump]

Only backs can be in motion at the snap.  See 7.1.3.b.4:  "One player may be in motion, but not in motion toward his opponent’s goal line. A lineman may not be in motion at the snap."