Shift

[Badger1]

I saw this formation (shift) used several times last year while watching the Wisconsin Badgers in a bowl game and just question it as it didn't look correct but no penalty was called.  I would assume the same rules apply to National Federation. 

The Badgers (on offense) came to the line of scrimmage with eight players on the line.  The five linemen (Tackle to Tackle) take a 3 point stance and center has hand on the ball with the quarterback under center.  There is a tight end (with an eligible receiver's number) in a 2 point stance next to one of the tackles and then a wide out on each side of the formation both in 2 point stances so the tight end is covered.  All are motionless at which point the tight end (who is covered by a wide out) then steps back one step and sets in the backfield into a 3 point stance.  Just seemed to me that since he was covered by a wide out that he couldn't shift even though he is in a 2 point stance.  I assume I am overlooking something which makes this legal.  Thanks.

[bossman72]

I saw this formation (shift) used several times last year while watching the Wisconsin Badgers in a bowl game and just question it as it didn't look correct but no penalty was called.  I would assume the same rules apply to National Federation. 

The Badgers (on offense) came to the line of scrimmage with eight players on the line.  The five linemen (Tackle to Tackle) take a 3 point stance and center has hand on the ball with the quarterback under center.  There is a tight end (with an eligible receiver's number) in a 2 point stance next to one of the tackles and then a wide out on each side of the formation both in 2 point stances so the tight end is covered.  All are motionless at which point the tight end (who is covered by a wide out) then steps back one step and sets in the backfield into a 3 point stance.  Just seemed to me that since he was covered by a wide out that he couldn't shift even though he is in a 2 point stance.  I assume I am overlooking something which makes this legal.  Thanks.

Key factor here is the 2 point stance.  If the "TE" was in a 3 point stance on the line and covered up, he is locked in there.  Since he was in a 2 point, he is free to shift anywhere.

[Ralph Damren]

As usual, Bossman nailed. Reference 7-1-7c.

[JKinGA29]

Agree with Bossman.

But while on the topic of the Outback Bowl and illegal acts, I want to discuss how the Badgers (on defense) moved the right upright a matter of inches which stole the game away from my Tigers! Still waiting for the     

[wvoref]

Key factor here is the 2 point stance.  If the "TE" was in a 3 point stance on the line and covered up, he is locked in there.  Since he was in a 2 point, he is free to shift anywhere.

Also if he had been in a three point stance the wide receiver could have shifted uncovering the tight end which would the make it possible for the tight end to shift even though he had been in a three point stance.

[Rulesman]

Also if he had been in a three point stance the wide receiver could have shifted uncovering the tight end which would the make it possible for the tight end to shift even though he had been in a three point stance.

Are you sure about that?

[wvoref]

Are you sure about that?

Pretty sure. Check casebook 7-1-7D 

[Atlanta Blue]

Are you sure about that?

He's right as long as the WR shifted and established himself as a back BEFORE the T/TE came out of his stance.

[Rulesman]

He's right as long as the WR shifted and established himself as a back BEFORE the T/TE came out of his stance.

Which was my point. Timing is everything. Plays (shifts) like this require the utmost in scrutiny.

[wvoref]

Actually I'm not sure the wideout has to establish himself as a back. I think he could shift from the right side of the line to the left side of the line which uncovers the tight end and allows him to come out of the three point stance.  The potential penalty for coming out of the three point stance is false start a dead ball foul. As long as he is not covered he can come out of the three point stance legally as long as he isn't simulating action at the snap.

[Atlanta Blue]

Actually I'm not sure the wideout has to establish himself as a back. I think he could shift from the right side of the line to the left side of the line which uncovers the tight end and allows him to come out of the three point stance.  The potential penalty for coming out of the three point stance is false start a dead ball foul. As long as he is not covered he can come out of the three point stance legally as long as he isn't simulating action at the snap.

If the WR shifted to the other end and established himself as the end on that side, then I would agree.  But until the WR establishes himself somewhere else (and wasn't in motion), I think that tackle is not yet an end.

Look at the ruling to the case play you cited:

RULING: A legal shift by A2. Restrictions that apply to interior linemen no longer apply to A2 after A1 moved off the line  thus making A2 an end. (2-39)and assumed a position as a back,

The WR has to be established in a new position to now make the tackle an end.

[wvoref]

Interpretation I've always had was as soon as tight end was uncovered by wideout moving from his position on the line (whether he was still in motion or not) the three point stance restrictions of the tight end were ended as he was no longer covered. Of course we have all of the shift and motion restrictions still in effect but these are live ball fouls at the snap as opposed to a dead ball false start.  The actual rule citation just says a lineman who is not on the end of the line cannot come out of a three point stance but unfortunately doesn't define what action must be taken to uncover him.  Similarly have always thought it would be legal for the wideout to back up far enough to be clearly off the line, then the tight end could back up putting him in the slot, then the wide out could move back up onto the line giving us our 7 man line. As long as everyone is set and they beat the 25 second clock this should be legal. Again my contention is that the key is that the tight end is no longer covered up and this can be accomplished without the wideout already being set as long as the wideout is clearly not on the line covering up the tight end. If my interpretation is mistaken hopefully Ralph or someone can weigh in.  As to the casebook play not sure if it requires the player to be set or simply included that in this situation so that we didn't get all concerned with shift and motion concerns.

[AlUpstateNY]

Interpretation I've always had was as soon as tight end was uncovered by wideout moving from his position on the line (whether he was still in motion or not) the three point stance restrictions of the tight end were ended as he was no longer covered. Of course we have all of the shift and motion restrictions still in effect but these are live ball fouls at the snap as opposed to a dead ball false start.  The actual rule citation just says a lineman who is not on the end of the line cannot come out of a three point stance but unfortunately doesn't define what action must be taken to uncover him.  Similarly have always thought it would be legal for the wideout to back up far enough to be clearly off the line, then the tight end could back up putting him in the slot, then the wide out could move back up onto the line giving us our 7 man line. As long as everyone is set and they beat the 25 second clock this should be legal. Again my contention is that the key is that the tight end is no longer covered up and this can be accomplished without the wideout already being set as long as the wideout is clearly not on the line covering up the tight end. If my interpretation is mistaken hopefully Ralph or someone can weigh in.  As to the casebook play not sure if it requires the player to be set or simply included that in this situation so that we didn't get all concerned with shift and motion concerns.

I share your above interpretation wvoref.  NF: 2-39 specifically defines a Shift and reference to achieving a new "set position" relates to actually completing that "shift".

NF 7-2-7-c, relating to "players on his line between the snapper and the player on the end of the line, after having placed a hand (s) on or near the ground, moves his hand(s), or makes any quick movement" is included under NF: 7-1 "Before the snap".

As suggested above, once the "player on the end of the line" vacates that position, the player immediately inside him becomes "the player on the end of the line" regardless of whether the vacating player eventually completes a shift (by resetting) or continues "in motion", is excluded from the 7-2-7-c restrictions when his status (becoming, "the player on the end of the line) changes.

[wvoref]

A play situation involving this rule came up several years ago at one of our association meeting. Apparently a team was running "muddle huddle"/"swinging gate"/"whatever other terms describe" center over ball in middle of field with holder and kicker behind him and rest of team lined up towards one of the sidelines.  For some reason the players on the line for the swinging gate went down in a three point stance.  Discussion revolved around fact that they couldn't rise and shift en masse once the RFP was given.  To shift out of this formation,if they were in three point stance, they would have to peel off the line one at a time beginning with the outside man and continue working inward.  Of course if they were using the numbering exception this could create a real nightmare when the play was actually run.  But we felt that once the "end" had peeled off uncovering the next man in then that player could also peel off and didn't have to wait for the first player to set.

[Curious]

IMHO, if the WR has departed his position on the LOS, then the "eligible numbered tackle" becomes uncovered and is, thereby an eligible receiver.  I don't think the rules specify that a player's position is dictated by where he was last "legal"; or, that a "covered receiver" remains covered once the "covering" player vacates that spot.

Did I actually agree with UpstateAl?    

A offensive player in the game can be one of three things: a back, a lineman, or neither.

If the WR never established himself as a BACK, by stopping for a second in the backfield and without breaking the waistline of the snapper , Team A has a different problem: Illegal Position at the Snap - since he, the WR, is now neither a lineman nor a back.