Author Topic: Legal Play from from Scrimmage Kick Formation?  (Read 1074 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bctgp

  • *
  • Posts: 250
  • FAN REACTION: +6/-10
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Legal Play from from Scrimmage Kick Formation?
« on: December 17, 2023, 11:39:11 PM »
Hi Folks,

High school game, but very interesting play involving scrimmage kick formation and numbering exceptions.  Legal or not?

https://1drv.ms/v/s!Am0Z9GgtzqgZp1tbLpqbQs_cGrFg?e=SCAy76

Offline Kalle

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3309
  • FAN REACTION: +109/-35
Re: Legal Play from from Scrimmage Kick Formation?
« Reply #1 on: December 18, 2023, 01:52:23 AM »
Assuming that the wings have allowed the widest receiver who wants to be in the backfield to line up that close to the line previously, I don't see anything illegal here. No restricted lineman goes downfield before the pass and A15 has never been covered, so he is not a numbering exception.

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 3436
  • FAN REACTION: +161/-143
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Legal Play from from Scrimmage Kick Formation?
« Reply #2 on: December 18, 2023, 06:36:06 AM »
Concur with Kalle on the formation. But A15 false starts.

Offline peterparsons

  • *
  • Posts: 128
  • FAN REACTION: +10/-0
  • BAFRA/IFAF/ELF official.
Re: Legal Play from from Scrimmage Kick Formation?
« Reply #3 on: December 18, 2023, 07:54:25 AM »
A15 isn't a problem on this play, but what about A22 (middle of the 3 backs on the near side at the start of the clip) and A92 (nearest lineman i.e. the end at the start of the clip)?

With respect to A22, the rules state that numbering exception applies to lineman at the moment that the snapper is established (7-1-4-a-5-(a)) and at the start of the clip the snapper is already established (he has his hands on the ball) and A22 is a back (so eligible). A22 then subsequently moves up onto the line to become ineligible by position, but can't, by rule, be or become a numbering exception since he didn't meet the requirements to be one at the moment that the numbering exceptions are set (i.e. when the snapper is established).

With respect to A92, the rules state that any numbering exception can't be on the end of the line (7-1-4-a-5-(b)) and, at the start of the clip A92 is on the end of the line with the snapper established, so by rule can't be or become a numbering exception either.

On that basis, I would say that this is an Illegal Formation in NCAA rules as the play is executed since neither A22 nor A92 are not legal numbering exceptions when the snapper is established.

If the snapper was stood upright while they did all the moving around and only went near the ball once all the other players had finished moving (2-27-8), it would be a legal play since all the players would then be in position as numbering exceptions when the snapper was established.

Offline Covid 22

  • *
  • Posts: 175
  • FAN REACTION: +6/-11
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Legal Play from from Scrimmage Kick Formation?
« Reply #4 on: December 18, 2023, 08:30:46 AM »
If the coach did not cover this with the R before the game, I would probably have a flag and sort it out.   There are not 5 players on the line numbered  50 - 79 so when the center puts his hand on the ball, the center and the two players on each side of him are now the interior linemen.  This makes #15 ineligible.   When the two outside backs move to the LOS, you now have a strong side with one ineligible because he is covered.   

Seems to me this should have been flagged if the R and U set their number exception be fore the shift.

Am I wrong?

Offline Kalle

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3309
  • FAN REACTION: +109/-35
Re: Legal Play from from Scrimmage Kick Formation?
« Reply #5 on: December 18, 2023, 10:29:24 AM »
With respect to A22, the rules state that numbering exception applies to lineman at the moment that the snapper is established (7-1-4-a-5-(a)) and at the start of the clip the snapper is already established (he has his hands on the ball) and A22 is a back (so eligible). A22 then subsequently moves up onto the line to become ineligible by position, but can't, by rule, be or become a numbering exception since he didn't meet the requirements to be one at the moment that the numbering exceptions are set (i.e. when the snapper is established).

I've assumed the rule language to mean that after the snapper touches the ball, you can shift into a numbering exception position, but once you've become a numbering exception, you cannot undo it. But I don't see any A.R.'s on this and like you said, the rule does pretty clearly say that the numbering exceptions are established only at the moment the snapper touches the ball.

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 3436
  • FAN REACTION: +161/-143
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Legal Play from from Scrimmage Kick Formation?
« Reply #6 on: December 18, 2023, 11:14:13 AM »
A15 isn't a problem on this play, ...

In terms of formation and eligibility, that is correct. But, he starts moving forward clearly before the snap begins. This is a false start.

Offline bctgp

  • *
  • Posts: 250
  • FAN REACTION: +6/-10
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Legal Play from from Scrimmage Kick Formation?
« Reply #7 on: December 18, 2023, 11:31:34 AM »
Rule 7-1-4-5-a states, "Any and all linemen not numbered 50-79 who are ineligible receiver(s) by position become exceptions to the numbering rule when the snapper is established.", so A15 is not an ineligible receiver by position as he is on the end of the line.  So technically he is not a considered a number exception, right?

Offline Covid 22

  • *
  • Posts: 175
  • FAN REACTION: +6/-11
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Legal Play from from Scrimmage Kick Formation?
« Reply #8 on: December 18, 2023, 01:01:30 PM »
I understand your thought process. 

1)  You are the R and A lines up with a player 10+ yards behind the center
2)  Five players get in a three point stance
3)  Aligned with a center and two players on each side of the center
4)  You look left and right and see that nobody else is on the LOS
5)  You then note the numbers of the linemen that are not eligible  (15 & 92) by number exception
6)  The snap is immanent and two players right of the numbers step up to be on the line.   
7)   The snap is made. How does the R know that the players stepped up and how does that change the scenario?

Seems to meet the definition of a planned hideout play. 

Offline bctgp

  • *
  • Posts: 250
  • FAN REACTION: +6/-10
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Legal Play from from Scrimmage Kick Formation?
« Reply #9 on: December 18, 2023, 02:27:05 PM »
Questions:

1) If we say numbering restrictions are established only when the moment snapper addresses the ball, then in a scenario where the snapper does address the ball before any other players get on the LOS then unless they have 5  numbered 50-79 on the line it would be a foul?

2) Would it be fair to given they have a player 10-yds off the LOS but with the whole formation as a whole is it really apparent a kick will be made?

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 3436
  • FAN REACTION: +161/-143
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Legal Play from from Scrimmage Kick Formation?
« Reply #10 on: December 18, 2023, 02:58:50 PM »
If the coach did not cover this with the R before the game, I would probably have a flag and sort it out.   There are not 5 players on the line numbered  50 - 79 so when the center puts his hand on the ball, the center and the two players on each side of him are now the interior linemen.  This makes #15 ineligible.   When the two outside backs move to the LOS, you now have a strong side with one ineligible because he is covered.   

Seems to me this should have been flagged if the R and U set their number exception be fore the shift.

Am I wrong?

A36, spread to the left, was always a back. A15 was ALWAYS the left end. Nothing about their formation ever changed those facts. The two players to the far right side of the formation were not on the line when the formation was first established, so neither were numbering exceptions until they moved onto the line. When A22 and A4 moved forward onto the line, A22 became a numbering exception, as did A92 (who got covered by A22 and A4).
By the discussions I had with John Adams regarding numbering exceptions many years ago, his words to me were that Team A was not to be allowed to abuse the numbering exceptions rule to confuse Team B with regard to which players were eligible. Once a player became an exception, he remained ineligible, IF THEY ULTIMATELY SNAP FROM A SKF. After a SKF is established, they could change the formation, by moving folks around within line and/or adding folks to the line, the but the exceptions remained ineligible (and, of course, the exceptions were subject to false start restrictions of ineligible linemen). But, if they do change to a non-SKF formation, then they would no longer have the ability to have numbering exceptions. Similarly, if they moved more people onto the line after an SKF was established, then everybody that was/is an exception must still be on the line, and NOT on the end of the line, at the snap. 7-1-4-a-5-(b) would not be necessary if the numbering exception rule only applied to players on the line and between the ends at the moment a SKF is first established. So, any time AFTER a SKF is first established, Team A players with numbers other than 50-79 who take positions on their line of scrimmage and between the ends, and the team comes to a stop with a one-second pause in a SKF, also become numbering exceptions.

Here is an example:
4/15, A-35, 8:00 (2), A=7, B=0. Team A has 11 players on the field, all wearing numbers other than 50-79. When snapper A99 addresses the ball, and all players of Team A have come to a complete stop, Team A is in the following formation:
81            83  85  99  82  84             86
             87                           88
                       
                         89



                              11 (ten yards behind the NZ)

Following a one-second pause, Team A shifts to the following formation:
81          87   83  85  99  82  84             86  88
                                     
                       
                         89



                              11 (ten yards behind the NZ)


When the formation is first established, it is obvious a scrimmage kick will be attempted. Team A has 7 linemen, all numbered other than 50-79, i.e., all interior linemen are numbering 'exceptions.' Following the shift, it is still obvious Team A will make a scrimmage kick, thus, A87 becomes a numbering exception, and, by becoming 'covered,' A86 also becomes a numbering exception. When Team A snaps  from this formation, this is a legal formation. A82 thru A86, and A99 are exceptions, and are ineligible. Note that, unless they have placed a hand/hands on/near the ground, A82 thru A86 could change positions between A81 and A88, all they want. A99 can't change positions, once he is established as the snapper.

Offline Covid 22

  • *
  • Posts: 175
  • FAN REACTION: +6/-11
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Legal Play from from Scrimmage Kick Formation?
« Reply #11 on: December 18, 2023, 04:00:05 PM »
An interesting discussion.   I agree 100% with the diagram and your conclusion.

However, the actual play was not like your alignment.   There were 5 player on the LOS set in a 2 or 3 point stance with the center's hand on the ball.   The other 6 players were stationary in the backfield.  All three wideouts looked at the H and motioned that they were off the LOS.   My last question to help me understand: Why were the number exceptions not set right then?  It seems to be a hideout play taking advantage of the exception.   

After this, I accept your position as correct if I made an incorrect assessment.

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 3436
  • FAN REACTION: +161/-143
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Legal Play from from Scrimmage Kick Formation?
« Reply #12 on: December 18, 2023, 07:22:40 PM »
…My last question to help me understand: Why were the number exceptions not set right then?

Well, one exception was set right then. A25 was an exception when he established himself as the snapper. At that moment, there were only 5 linemen. The two ends, at that moment, were wearing eligible numbers, so they were not ‘exceptions.’ The two interior linemen on either side of the snapper, at that moment, were not wearing eligible numbers, so they were not ‘exceptions.’ Yes, at that moment, the other 6 players were all in the backfield, wearing eligible numbers.
Team A is not restricted in shifting into a different formation after they first establish a SKF. They still have the opportunity to correct a bad formation. When the two widest backs move up to the line, the inside guy, A22, and A92 (who had been the end), become additional numbering exceptions, and make for a legal formation, with not more than 4 players in the backfield.
The original exception remained an interior lineman. The additional exceptions were still interior linemen at the snap. There was no deception involved. Yes, Team B needed to pay attention.  If paid good attention, they weren’t deceived.

There is no doubt what they did was all scripted and practiced. But, they did not try to hide anybody. If Team B had been paying attention, they would have seen that A4 and A15 were eligible. Team A had no more obligation.

Offline bctgp

  • *
  • Posts: 250
  • FAN REACTION: +6/-10
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Legal Play from from Scrimmage Kick Formation?
« Reply #13 on: December 18, 2023, 11:11:40 PM »
Quick question: Yes they have a player 10-yds off the LOS but with the formation as a whole after the final shift, is it really apparent a kick will be made?  I only ask this because of the following AR and similarity (albeit not 100% the same).

AR-7-4-1-VIII below

1. 4/5 @ B-40. Midway through the 4th quarter, Team A lines up with A11 ten yards directly behind the
snapper. The other three backs are split wide, all outside the tackle box. Only four Team A linemen have
uniform numbers between 50 and 79. A11 receives a backward pass from the snapper with Team A in
this formation. A11 throws a legal forward pass to A21, and the pass is complete for a 5-yard gain.

RULING: A, 4/10, B-45, Ready.
Team A is not in a scrimmage kick formation, because in this alignment it is not obvious that a kick will
be attempted. Since there are not five players numbered 50-79 on the line of scrimmage, this is an
illegal formation, and it is a live ball foul (Rule 2-16-10 & AR 7-1-4 VIII)
« Last Edit: December 18, 2023, 11:24:24 PM by bctgp »

Offline Kalle

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3309
  • FAN REACTION: +109/-35
Re: Legal Play from from Scrimmage Kick Formation?
« Reply #14 on: December 19, 2023, 12:45:36 AM »
Quick question: Yes they have a player 10-yds off the LOS but with the formation as a whole after the final shift, is it really apparent a kick will be made?  I only ask this because of the following AR and similarity (albeit not 100% the same).

A really good question. In our play there is a blocking back, so I'm still tempted to say that this is a SKF, but somebody else might have a valid disagreement especially depending on what kind of a punt formation team A used previously (if any).

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 3436
  • FAN REACTION: +161/-143
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Legal Play from from Scrimmage Kick Formation?
« Reply #15 on: December 19, 2023, 09:09:17 AM »
A really good question. In our play there is a blocking back, so I'm still tempted to say that this is a SKF, but somebody else might have a valid disagreement especially depending on what kind of a punt formation team A used previously (if any).

Yes, even after the shift, it looked for all the world to be a punt formation, with three 'flyers' on the right side. An unusual, but not unreasonable, punt formation. They complied with the letter of the rule, and the spirit. They did not try to confuse Team B as to who was eligible, as long as Team B paid attention. Both A92 and A22 were clearly on the line and covered by A4, even as seen from the defensive backfield. After they shifted, neither A4 nor A22 tried to make anybody guess as to whether they were on the line or in the backfield. A22, in particular, actually had his foot in the NZ (that is another separate issue). A4 - covering A22 - was also right on top of the NZ (maybe half a foot in the NZ). And that was easy to see from almost anywhere on the field. Now, granted, they didn't give Team B a lot of time to analyze the formation, but they certainly stopped and PAUSED for a one full second before the snap. That is all that is required, on any scrimmage down.
The mechanics of the rule prevents Team A from moving a numbering exception into a position of apparent eligibility, to confuse Team B. That didn't happen. Once A92 and A22 became 'exceptions,' they never tried to make it look like they were still eligible.
Team A did push the envelope slightly, after the snap, by having A22 drop back to look as though he might receive a forward screen pass. Team B simply has to be smart enough to know that A22 isn't eligible to receive a forward pass, and not worry about him, knowing that it will be a foul if he touches a LFP before it is touched by B. They needed to focus their attention on A4, A90, A33, A15, and A36.

We should be more concerned about the encroachment by A22, and the FST by A15. And, of course, we need to know the eligible/ineligible folks, and be prepared to rule accordingly.

Perhaps, someday, technology will be developed to determine and visually identify which players are eligible at any given moment before the snap. Maybe a red light on their helmet.  ;D
 

Offline peterparsons

  • *
  • Posts: 128
  • FAN REACTION: +10/-0
  • BAFRA/IFAF/ELF official.
Re: Legal Play from from Scrimmage Kick Formation?
« Reply #16 on: December 19, 2023, 10:24:44 AM »
A really good question. In our play there is a blocking back, so I'm still tempted to say that this is a SKF, but somebody else might have a valid disagreement especially depending on what kind of a punt formation team A used previously (if any).

This is where AR 7-1-4-VIII and AR 7-1-4-VII both offer help and, as a pair, don't. -VIII says "not a SKF if all the backs are split side", -VII says "it is on 3rd or 4th down with the backs close". On this play it's 4th down with both a back in close and 3 players split wide. Depending on which AR you decide takes priority, there is an an argument to be made for this both being and not being a SKF. Do we have Schroedinger's SFK?