4th down numbering exception. Snapper eligible?

[Ref13]

In the following formation on 4th down (scrimmage kick formation), is the snapper, number 43 eligible?


82             53  41  67 80 72         43

         21                                                               88
                                                32
 
                                             7

[Atlanta Blue]

Yes.

1.  He is on the end of the line.
2.  He's wearing an eligible number.
3.  He is not in the game under the numbering exception (41 and 80 are the exception numbers).

[Rulesman]

Agree with AB for the reasons he cited.

[Ralph Damren]

IMHO, I respectfully disagree. While AB's 1 & 2 are correct, the snapper is in the game under the numbering exception as they are not 5 linemen numbered 50-79. If #80 & 41 had linesman numbers, the numbering exception would not be used and the snapper would then be eligible.

I, like some of you, like A-1 Sauce on my steak. I ,like most of you, didn't like an offense by a similar name. I proposed to adopt the NCAA rule that read something like, "...the numbering exception is allowed only when a scrimmage kick is apparent." Apparently that was too simple and we've got what we now have. It can become very confusing. Sorry.

[Atlanta Blue]

IMHO, I respectfully disagree. While AB's 1 & 2 are correct, the snapper is in the game under the numbering exception as they are not 5 linemen numbered 50-79. If #80 & 41 had linesman numbers, the numbering exception would not be used and the snapper would then be eligible.

Want to check that one again?  I think you're missing something.  You're better than that!

[Johnponz]

Ralph,

I respectfully disagree because 43 lined up on the end of the line to begin with, and thus is  not part of the numbering exception.  The 5 interior linemen are 53, 41, 67, 80 and 72.  41 is covered under the numbering exception (meaning that 53 cannot shift back to make 41 eligible-assuming 82 was off the line as well.) 

43 is simply an end that snaps the ball.  I believe rules wise you can make the argument that this is covered in 7-3-5 (1) covers 1st, 2nd and 3rd down, and mentions the person who snaps the ball as an exception and also mentions he is ineligible.  (2) covers 4th down and makes no specific mention of the person who snaps the ball being an exception. 

Remember there is no other rule in the rulebook that specifically says a player numbered 50-79 must snap the ball (Anyone can do this except on 1st, 2nd or 3rd down <7-3-5 (1)>.

[Ralph Damren]

Guys,

I now respectfully disagree with my disagreement. I confused myself with our confusing rule. I can only blame my age and the fact that I also missed the Yankees losing last night and the lunar eclipse last week. I hope not to miss the Cubs winning the WS.

[HLinNC]

Remember- the numbering exception is for a player taking the place of a player NORMALLY numbered 50-79.  That is the exception.

We make this harder than it has to be.

[Rulesman]

Remember- the numbering exception is for a player taking the place of a player NORMALLY numbered 50-79.  That is the exception.

We make this harder than it has to be.

-+1

[Rulesman]

I hope not to miss the Cubs winning the WS.

Sorry to disappoint. They won't get out of the NLCS. #LGM

[bama_stripes]

I hope not to miss the Cubs winning the WS.

Don't worry!   

[Johnponz]

Remember- the numbering exception is for a player taking the place of a player NORMALLY numbered 50-79.  That is the exception.

We make this harder than it has to be.

That is an oversimplification with regard to Federation rules as the Center is specifically listed as an exception to the numbering requirement and an ineligible receive on downs 1, 2 and 3 (7-3-5 (1) if he is not wearing a number between 50-79.

[Ref13]

Remember- the numbering exception is for a player taking the place of a player NORMALLY numbered 50-79.  That is the exception.

We make this harder than it has to be.

Yes thank you.  I posed this question because so many of our officials here are adamant that the snapper here is ineligible.  When, like you state, its quite simply obvious that 41 and 80 are the two players in under the exception.

[gmgiesey]

If A32 is not down on a knee, this is not a scrimmage kick formation and the numbering exception does not apply. 

[Atlanta Blue]

If A32 is not down on a knee, this is not a scrimmage kick formation and the numbering exception does not apply.

True, but the snapper is still an eligible receiver!

[Tom.OH]

Guys,

I now respectfully disagree with my disagreement. I confused myself with our confusing rule. I can only blame my age and the fact that I also missed the Yankees losing last night and the lunar eclipse last week. I hope not to miss the Cubs winning the WS.

Ralph just told us he's going to live to 150 years old!

[Ralph Damren]

Ralph just told us he's going to live to 150 years old!

May only need to make it to 70 (24th of this month )....BUT...this may be their year !


GO CUBBIES....

[maybrefguy]

Just a thought - if team A lines up in this formation on 1st and 10 - replaces 41 with 52 and 80 with 66 - isn't the snapper still eligible because of number and alignment?

[FLAHL]

Just a thought - if team A lines up in this formation on 1st and 10 - replaces 41 with 52 and 80 with 66 - isn't the snapper still eligible because of number and alignment?

Yes, the snapper is eligible. Nobody is in the game using the numbering exception. Snapper is eligible by position and number.