Running backs stance?

[BigWill]

Back sets in a 3 pt. stance is set for a sec. then moves into a 2pt. stance is set for a sec. coach is yelling he can't do that your thoughts on this ?

[ncwingman]

Legal play, as long as the movement into a two point stance wasn't abrupt to "simulate the snap".

Only interior linemen are restricted from moving out of a three point stance prior to the snap. Ends and backs are allowed to pick their hands up off the ground.

[Fatso]

What ncwingman said !

[juxone]

    

what Fatso said !

[NVFOA_Ump]

Legal play, as long as the movement into a two point stance wasn't abrupt to "simulate the snap".

Only interior linemen are restricted from moving out of a three point stance prior to the snap. Ends and backs are allowed to pick their hands up off the ground.

I would add "numbered 50-79" after interior linemen.

[ncwingman]

I would add "numbered 50-79" after interior linemen.

I would not. 7-1-7c does not restrict the condition to players with certain numbers, just their position as linemen between the ends and snapper.

The snapper gets a little more flexibility so he can, you know, adjust and/or snap the ball, but he's restricted by similar language in 7-1-3 as to what defines a snap infraction.

Also, the requirement of five players numbered 50-79 only have to be linemen, not interior linemen. If your line looks like:

80      56 66 76 82(s) 68 54

Where 82 is the snapper, this is a legal formation, albeit with one fewer eligible receivers as normal since 54 is ineligible by number, even though he is an end.

[CalhounLJ]

I would not. 7-1-7c does not restrict the condition to players with certain numbers, just their position as linemen between the ends and snapper.

The snapper gets a little more flexibility so he can, you know, adjust and/or snap the ball, but he's restricted by similar language in 7-1-3 as to what defines a snap infraction.

Also, the requirement of five players numbered 50-79 only have to be linemen, not interior linemen. If your line looks like:

80      56 66 76 82(s) 68 54

Where 82 is the snapper, this is a legal formation, albeit with one fewer eligible receivers as normal since 54 is ineligible by number, even though he is an end.

Correct. And because 54 is on the end, he can pick up his hand and shift.

[NVFOA_Ump]

I would not. 7-1-7c does not restrict the condition to players with certain numbers, just their position as linemen between the ends and snapper.

The snapper gets a little more flexibility so he can, you know, adjust and/or snap the ball, but he's restricted by similar language in 7-1-3 as to what defines a snap infraction.

Also, the requirement of five players numbered 50-79 only have to be linemen, not interior linemen. If your line looks like:

80      56 66 76 82(s) 68 54

Where 82 is the snapper, this is a legal formation, albeit with one fewer eligible receivers as normal since 54 is ineligible by number, even though he is an end.

So what would you do if 54 went into a 3 point stance and then stood up prior to the snap?

[CalhounLJ]

So what would you do if 54 went into a 3 point stance and then stood up prior to the snap?

Nothing, if he didn't simulate the snap. 7-1-7c
ART. 7 . . . After the ball is ready for play and before the snap begins, no false start shall be made by any A player. It is a false start if: c. Any A player on his line between the snapper and the player on the end of his line, after having placed a hand(s) on or near the ground, moves his hand(s) or makes any quick movement.

Note it says the player on the end of the line, not an eligible pass receiver or a person wearing a back number. The number doesn’t matter. The position is what counts.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Note it says the player on the end of the line, not an eligible pass receiver or a person wearing a back number. The number doesn’t matter. The position is what counts.

80      56 66 76 82(s) 68 54     
                                          81

So in this alignment #56 and #54 are both in a 3 point stance.  Before the snap #80 resets back off the line as #81 moves up on the line as simultaneously both #56 and #54 change to a 2 point stance with hands on knees.  What do we have if anything?

[CalhounLJ]

80      56 66 76 82(s) 68 54     
                                          81

So in this alignment #56 and #54 are both in a 3 point stance.  Before the snap #80 resets back off the line as #81 moves up on the line as simultaneously both #56 and #54 change to a 2 point stance with hands on knees.  What do we have if anything?

If the move is after the shift, we have false start by #54. It's not hard. The player on the end of the line can pick up his hand.

[ncwingman]

If you're trying to suggest that 56 picks up his hand *while* 80 is moving back, then I'd call that a false start. Until 80 is clearly "a back", he's the end -- which means 56 isn't.

If 80 shifts back, gets set for a second, *and then* 56 picks up his hand -- well, he's the end at that point, so it's allowed.

The idea that all four players are moving as a designed shift is unlikely as well. It just seems unnecessarily complex with no obvious goal. Chances are, one of those players was not supposed to move and it will be obviously a false start when you see it live.