Do you make them always get inside the nines?

[ALStripes17]

If a defender sees him and is covering him, then of course there is no issue. That is not in dispute.
What was in discussion was if the defender does not see him, and the offensive player has not gone inside the numbers. In that case do you make the defender aware that there is a player outside the numbers, or do you inform the offensive (offending) player to go inside the numbers in order to legally participate in the play?

I do not believe you make the defender aware of the player. I think you make sure the player is lined up correctly.

We are in agreeance.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[GAHSUMPIRE]

in Ohio School zone speed limits are only in effect during restricted hours, pickup and drop-off times!  So that scenario is not valid. If the rule is not being enforced, change the sill rule.

While I think my point is approaching territory, I am saying that by working with the offensive player to ensure that he goes inside the numbers, I would be ensuring that the rules are being followed, the same as if I would tell a wide out to step up to be on the line of scrimmage, or to step back to be off of it. From that point on, it is up to the defense to adjust accordingly.

[bama_stripes]

If the rule is not being enforced, change the sill rule.

C'mon, John.

There are many times we don't call holding away from the point of attack.  That doesn't mean we don't need to have a rule against it.

Perhaps the hardest part of becoming a top-notch official is knowing what NOT to call.

[bigjohn]

big difference in holding and IF, IF is nit-picky by nature so it should be called by the book. I see a lot of receivers that are not clearly lined up as backs go out for passes.

[GAHSUMPIRE]

big difference in holding and IF, IF is nit-picky by nature so it should be called by the book. I see a lot of receivers that are not clearly lined up as backs go out for passes.

Clearly to whom? Does the defense think they are ineligible? Is the defense disadvantaged in any way?

[centexsports]

nm

[bawags06]

Here's another interesting twist to this that I didn't even think about till my 9th grade game last night.

It's even more unnecessary, in my opinion, to push the A receiver inside the nines when he is on the short side of the field, with the ball spotted on the hash. If he was at the boundary, maybe, but not if he is just at the numbers with a B player right over his face. No attempt to deceive, no advantage gained.

[Eastshire]

While I think my point is approaching territory, I am saying that by working with the offensive player to ensure that he goes inside the numbers, I would be ensuring that the rules are being followed, the same as if I would tell a wide out to step up to be on the line of scrimmage, or to step back to be off of it. From that point on, it is up to the defense to adjust accordingly.

I think you're just misreading what was being said. Instead of "make sure the defense" read "look to see if the defense." The suggestion wasn't to talk to the defense but to look to see if they had been unfairly deceived.

[bama_stripes]

big difference in holding and IF, IF is nit-picky by nature so it should be called by the book. I see a lot of receivers that are not clearly lined up as backs go out for passes.

Nail, meet Jello.

If you want to be critical of the rulesmakers and/or officials, you need to first understand the principle of advantage/disadvantage clearly and completely.

It's apparent that you don't, and don't want to.

[GAHSUMPIRE]

big difference in holding and IF, IF is nit-picky by nature so it should be called by the book. I see a lot of receivers that are not clearly lined up as backs go out for passes.

To be nit-picky, I see a lot of receivers that are not clearly lined up as backs go out for passes too. They are the last man on the line of scrimmage and are #1-49, or 80-99. They are eligible by both position and number.

[ALStripes17]

To be nit-picky, I see a lot of receivers that are not clearly lined up as backs go out for passes too. They are the last man on the line of scrimmage and are #1-49, or 80-99. They are eligible by both position and number.

We typically have two linemen eligible every play

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[bbeagle]

Do you make them always get inside the nines for a kickoff formation?

[ALStripes17]

Do you make them always get inside the nines for a kickoff formation?

There's no snap on free kicks so it would be hard to enforce this rule there...

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[sir55]

No. There is no snap on a KO.

[VALJ]

I do not believe you make the defender aware of the player. I think you make sure the player is lined up correctly.

I may have said it poorly, but that's what I meant.  Seeing that the B player isn't deceived by Speedy who was in for the last play but stayed outside the nines, rather than telling him "hey, make sure somebody covers Speedy".  I won't do the latter, but as long as I see the former, I'm not going to flag Speedy for it.

[bigjohn]

When you have any other IF I don't think there is an advantage but it always gets called (5 backs) !

[bigjohn]

so no one came up with a great reason why IF is always enforced when there are not 7 on the LOS but there isn't a good reason to enforce inside the nines?

[bama_stripes]

With other Illegal Formations, it can't be determined whether the foul had an impact on the play.  In this case, it can.

[ALStripes17]

When you have any other IF I don't think there is an advantage but it always gets called (5 backs) !

That is an advantage! The offense has more eligible receivers by position.. that will most definitely change defensive coverage and change the play.

A wideout that is obviously in the play (bc the defense is covering him) but fails to get inside the numbers?  Not any advantage/disadvantage there. Everyone knows who is eligible.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[bigjohn]

I see covered TE(receivers) go out all the time on passes, now that is an advantage and it is often missed!

[OHref71]

I see covered TE(receivers) go out all the time on passes, now that is an advantage and it is often missed!

Missing and illegal formation is totally different than not calling one because no advantage was gained. 

[GAHSUMPIRE]

so no one came up with a great reason why IF is always enforced when there are not 7 on the LOS but there isn't a good reason to enforce inside the nines?

I'll go back to preventive officiating. If you see a player is lined up incorrectly, or if you have questions about how the player is lined up, are you not going to take the opportunity to correct it if possible, before you throw the flag? Do you talk to the wide out to find out if he is supposed to be on the line of scrimmage? Shouldn't you?

There are enough fouls that occur in the normal progress of the game, if we can prevent one from being called, shouldn't we?

[Ralph Damren]

so no one came up with a great reason why IF is always enforced when there are not 7 on the LOS but there isn't a good reason to enforce inside the nines?

The 7 on the LOS requirement emerged back in the Teddy Roosevelt Era to prevent the flying wedge and make the game safer. In 1942, using substitutes to deceive was  considered unsportsmanlike conduct and so went the "hide-out" trickery. This evolved into 9-6-4d that we have today, a subjective call if you feel the substitution or pretended substitution was made to deceive the opponents. In 2005, it became a requirement to mark the "nines" with either a hash or number, and IF was expanded to require (7-2-1) A players to be within after RFP. This was an objective attempt to provide some guidance to a subjective call ...are they deceiving???

IMHO, I often feel our crew did a better job of keeping the game fair and safe in a game with few flags than I do in a game with many . IMHO , keeping control of the game often means few  flags are needed.

RULE 11 : Common sense : See everything you call, but don't call everything you see. (I believe authored by a friend from Oregon).

[scrounge]

I see covered TE(receivers) go out all the time on passes, now that is an advantage and it is often missed!

I think you're exaggerating on both sides. Earlier, you said IF is *always* enforced when not 7 on the LOS. While it's quite *often* called when clearly obvious, there's countless times when a receiver is in iffy territory, not fully on or back when we may either talk to him or it's close enough to let go. Now you saw you're seeing covered TEs *all the time*? Sounds like hyperbole to me. Maybe the outside receiver is just barely breaking the plane of the snapper but nearly back, maybe they are covering the TE and it was simply (likely rarely) missed, maybe what you consider covered isn't covered to that wing, I don't know. But I highly doubt there is this epidemic of obvious IF that is going uncalled.

If you want to Zapruder every outside receiver on whether they're completely and wholly on or back or strictly, I would say pedantically enforce the inside the nines, have at it. But I would guess you'd quickly become known as "That Guy". No one wants to be "That Guy".

[IA Linesman]

Our crew has called it twice this year I think.  Once on my side and once on the other.  We talk to the receivers and 'remind' them they need to be inside the numbers before the RFP. Both times were with no huddle offenses.  The receivers go straight to where they are supposed to line up and not getting inside.  The hurry up puts the defense at a disadvantage due to circumventing the rule. Talking, Reminding and even coming in to hold them at the numbers before the whistle can all help prevent this flag.  The other wing and I have also discussed we say to the top of the numbers but don't enforces till the bottom of the numbers.