RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: hefnerjm on September 27, 2016, 01:41:36 PM
-
Play situation: 4th and 3 from the B48 yard line. Team A lines up in scrimmage kick formation with 10 players aligned as follows:
(8) (12) (*73*) (15) (19) (23)
(9) (35)
(31)
(28) – punter 10 yards deep
Players A8, A9, & A23 go downfield. A28 rolls right as if attempting a rugby style punt and passes the ball to A9 who catches the ball at the B-5 and runs in to the end zone.
Based on rule 7-1-4 (specifically 7-1-4-3 and 7-1-4-5b) below:
Offensive Team Requirements—At the Snap
ARTICLE 4. Violation of each of the following (a-c) is a live-ball foul; the
play is allowed to continue.
a. Formation. At the snap Team A must be in a formation that meets these
requirements:
1. All players must be inbounds.
2. All players must be either linemen or backs (Rule 2-27-4).
3. At least five linemen must wear jerseys numbered 50 through 79
(Exception: When the snap is from a scrimmage kick formation,
par. 5 below.)
4. No more than four players may be backs.
5. In a scrimmage kick formation at the snap (Rule 2-16-10) Team
A may have fewer than five linemen numbered 50-79, subject to
the following conditions:
(a) 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.
(b) Any and all such numbering-exception players must be on the
line and may not be on the end of the line. Otherwise, Team A
commits a foul for an illegal formation.
(c) Any and all such players are exceptions to the numbering rule
throughout the down and remain ineligible receivers unless
they become eligible under Rule 7-3-5 (forward pass touched
by an official or a Team B player).
The conditions in 5(a)–5(c) are no longer in effect if prior to
the snap a period ends or there is a timeout charged to the referee
or one of the teams.
It is agreed that the rule is written intending Team A to play with 11 players, and that this play situation only becomes an issue if Team A plays with 10. (if playing with 11, then the extra man on the LOS allows both ends to be eligible by position and still have 5 players numbered 50-79 or legal exceptions. If the 11th player lined up in the backfield, then you have Team A illegal formation for more than 4 backs.).
Please discuss if you would have a foul for:
a) illegal formation on Team A – not 5 players numbered 50-79 (or legal exceptions) on the LOS
b) ineligible downfield – if you don’t have illegal formation, then do you accept 5 of the 6 players on the LOS as legal exceptions that become ineligible receivers by position.
c) No foul by team A. Please provide rationale
Some have said that by philosophy, if Team A plays with 10 players (legal) and is able to win the down, should they be penalized in this situation?
-
No foul. What rule did they break, specifically?
-
Play situation: 4th and 3 from the B48 yard line. Team A lines up in scrimmage kick formation with 10 players aligned as follows:
(8) (12) (*73*) (15) (19) (23)
(9) (35)
(31)
(28) – punter 10 yards deep
If this is the formation you intended, it's an Illegal Formation penalty on K -- they've only got 6 players on the line.
-
If this is the formation you intended, it's an Illegal Formation penalty on K -- they've only got 6 players on the line.
It's legal in NCAA as they only have four in the back field.
-
I think this is a live-ball illegal formation foul per 7-1-4a5(b) -- which states "any and all such numbering exception players... may not be on the end of the line." In this formation, either #8 or #23 must be a numbering exception if the requirement to have five linemen is fulfilled, and one of them (not sure which one -- doesn't really matter) is on the end of the line).
-
Let's parse through this looking at the rules you quoted above.
3. At least five linemen must wear jerseys numbered 50 through 79
(Exception: When the snap is from a scrimmage kick formation,
par. 5 below.)
This is not true so we go to Item #5 as the exception.
5. In a scrimmage kick formation at the snap (Rule 2-16-10) Team
A may have fewer than five linemen numbered 50-79, subject to
the following conditions:
(a) 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.
This makes players #12, #15 and #19 exceptions to the rule. Note that they don't have to 5 players as interior linemen, only that the players who are interior linemen do not have to have numbers 50-79 in this exception.
(b) Any and all such numbering-exception players must be on the
line and may not be on the end of the line. Otherwise, Team A
commits a foul for an illegal formation.
This is true so they are good. If they shifted and uncovered #12, 15 or 19 then this rule would be violated.
As bossman said, there isn't a rule they are actually violating. They don't have to have 5 players numbered 50-79 because they are in a scrimmage kick formation. None of the rules in the exception are violated. Legal play.
-
I agree ... Legal Play
No where does it state that team A has to have 5 linemen in ineligible positions, just that any linemen who are ineligible by position and not numbered 50-79 are numbering exceptions.
-
Legal This is Question 8 on 2013 CFO Quiz 5
8. Fourth and seven at the A-45. Team A only has 10 players on the field, with four in
the backfield. The players on the line of scrimmage from left to right are: 22, 50, 55, 61,
73, and 30. Team A’s punt bounces out of bounds at the B-30.
a. Illegal formation: fewer than five players on the line of scrimmage numbered
in the range 50-79.
b. Legal play.
c. Illegal formation: not enough players on the line of scrimmage
The answer key has b as correct answer.
The crux of the argument is those on one side say there have to be 5 50-59 or the total number of 50 - 79 plus exceptions has to equal 5. That is simply reading too much into the rule and also ignoring the intent of the rule as well as the rule change that permits A to play with 6 or fewer on the line when they have 10 or fewer in the game.
-
Interesting but I think I disagree.
Under NCAA rules a team can snap the ball with only 6 players (5 numbered 50 - 79 and someone to take the snap). So for the exception to take effect there must be five replacing these required linemen. That puts #23 ineligible by position and by rule he must be covered up. That means we have both an illegal formation and in ineligible downfield.
NO?
Maybe I responded too late.
-
It's legal in NCAA as they only have four in the back field.
DOH -- read the forum name next time, dummy! hEaDbAnG
-
The rule:
5. In a scrimmage kick formation at the snap (Rule 2-16-10) Team A may have fewer than five linemen numbered 50-79, subject to the following conditions:
(a) 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.
(b) Any and all such numbering-exception players must be on the line and may not be on the end of the line. Otherwise, Team A commits a foul for an illegal formation.
(c) Any and all such players are exceptions to the numbering rule throughout the down and remain ineligible receivers unless they become eligible under Rule 7-3-5 (forward pass touched by an official or a Team B player).
The rule says Team A only has to meet these 3 conditions to play with less than 5 50-79. The first condition is that any exceptions who are "ineligible by position". What does that mean? It means they lined up on the line BETWEEN THE ENDS when the snapper is established.
The 2d is the exceptions must be on the line and not on the end .
The 3d is they remain ineligible throughout the down.
Nothing in there says there has to be a total of 5 50-79 or a total of 5 who are numbered 50-79 or who are exceptions.
Those who say there has to be 5, which of the 2 ends on this 6 man line are you declaring is an exception?
-
So for the exception to take effect there must be five replacing these required linemen.
You get this where?
I do think that when the NCAA changed the 7 on the line to no more than 4 in the backfield back around 2008, we began to miss illegal formation fouls for when an offense was missing a guard or other interior lineman on a non-scrimmage kick formation play. I'd bet money I've missed it several times. We (or at least, I) felt like the intent of the rule was to not penalize Team A if they, for whatever reason, played with 10 or fewer players.
Don't mean to hijack the thread, but is my scenario in the above paragraph a foul or an ignore?
-
There is an AR addressing 10 players on a normal play. It says the formation is legal because you have 5 linemen 50-79 and no more than 4 in the backfield.
I agree that if Team A didn't have a right guard they shouldn't be penalized but it would seem the rules dictate otherwise.
-
Much of the discussion is based on how part 5 reads, but I think some of the confusion may be in how paragraph 3 is being read/applied.
"3. At least five linemen must wear jerseys numbered 50 through 79
(Exception: When the snap is from a scrimmage kick formation,
par. 5 below.)"
I think the simplest way to ask the question is this:
Does the exception apply to:
a) the number of linemen [5]
or
b) the jersey numbers of the linemen
or
c) both
All of paragraph 5 refers to the conditions to become a "numbering exception", so my initial interpretation is that the exception only applies to b) the jersey numbers of the linemen.
(a) 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.
(b) Any and all such numbering-exception players must be on the
line and may not be on the end of the line. Otherwise, Team A
commits a foul for an illegal formation.
(c) Any and all such players are exceptions to the numbering rule
throughout the down and remain ineligible receivers unless
they become eligible under Rule 7-3-5 (forward pass touched
by an official or a Team B player).
If we are saying that the exception applies to both the jersey number, and the actual number of linemen, then I can understand the application that Mike provided regarding the exception only applying to the interior linemen.
-
If we go back to the original play IMO it is not the same as the play from question 8 on 2013 CFO Quiz 5. Here we have an "uncovered interior lineman" that goes downfield and catches a pass.
While I agree and understand (I think) the numbering exception, we've had discussions when the rule changed that it is now a requirement that team A must have 5 ineligible lineman on the LOS ("five linemen must wear jerseys numbered 50 through 79"). IMO given the (admittedly ambiguous) exception wording, it only allows those 5 interior lineman to have numbers outside the range of 50 thru 79 - not to have less than 5 of them.
The referenced quiz question does not address the issue of an "numbering exception player" (who IMHO has to be ineligible) going downfield for a pass as he does in the case play here. Is there an AR, quiz question, or memo that address the eligibility issue that is raised by the case play here?
Under the rules we, and more importantly team B, must be able to identify the ineligibles and eligibles prior to the snap (again, IMO there must be 5 of them) and that can't be done here, so IMO at least one of them is in fact illegally downfield on this play. If none of them went downfield, and the pass was to a back then IMO we're OK.
-
It absolutely does address. There would be a foul for illegal formation in the real play and the quiz play says no foul so that means no foul for illegal formation in yhebraknplay. And if the formation is legal , meaning no exceptions on the end then those ends are eligible
-
Let's flipped the situation. You have this formation form the R position left to right
23, 44, 88(snapper), 4, 33, 19, 38, 80 all on the line of scrimmage
10(punter), 6, 2 in the back field
Question I pose to you who are the eligible receivers, ineligibles, and who are the numbering exceptions?
-
It absolutely does address. There would be a foul for illegal formation in the real play and the quiz play says no foul so that means no foul for illegal formation in yhebraknplay. And if the formation is legal , meaning no exceptions on the end then those ends are eligible
I'll disagree. In the quiz play no "ineligibles" went downfield and 5 "ineligible lineman" remained on the LOS. In the case play here, at least one of the "ineligible" players went downfield (since only 4 remained behind the LOS). IMHO we have to have an ineligible receiver downfield on this case play.
-
Let's flipped the situation. You have this formation form the R position left to right
23, 44, 88(snapper), 4, 33, 19, 38, 80 all on the line of scrimmage
10(punter), 6, 2 in the back field
Question I pose to you who are the eligible receivers, ineligibles, and who are the numbering exceptions?
Eligibles are the ends and the backs (23, 80, 10, 6, 2) ineligibles are 44, 48, 4, 33, 19, 38. There's at least 5 ineligibles on the line so the ends (23 and 88) are clearly identifiable (to both us and team B) as the eligibles on the LOS.
-
ARTICLE 3. a. Eligibility rules apply during a down when a legal forward
pass is thrown.
b. All Team B players are eligible to touch or catch a pass.
c. When the ball is snapped, the following Team A players are eligible:
1. Each lineman who is on the end of his scrimmage line and who is
wearing a number other than 50 through 79.
2.
Each back wearing a number other than 50 through 79.
d.
An eligible player loses his eligibility when he goes out of bounds. (Rule
7-3-4) (A. R. 7-3-9-III)
-
Eligibles are the ends and the backs (23, 80, 10, 6, 2) ineligibles are 44, 48, 4, 33, 19, 38. There's at least 5 ineligibles on the line so the ends (23 and 88) are clearly identifiable (to both us and team B) the eligible on the LOS.
Who are the numbering exceptions?
-
Roy - You are missing the point. If the player is ineligible, then it is an illegal formation. You cant have ineligibles (as exceptions) on the end of the line. The quiz said it was not an illegal formation so those 2 are eloigible.
And I await your answer as to which of the 2 you are designating an exception and why
-
"3. At least five linemen must wear jerseys numbered 50 through 79
(Exception: When the snap is from a scrimmage kick formation,
par. 5 below.)"
I think the simplest way to ask the question is this:
Does the exception apply to:
a) the number of linemen [5]
or
b) the jersey numbers of the linemen
or
c) both
The exception applies to Team A. They must have 5 linemen with numbers 50-79. If they don't it's a foul UNLESS they are in scrimmage kick formation. If that's the case, you go to Paragraph 5 for requirements.
You're reading more into the rule than what is there. Paragraph 5 lays out for us that any eligible numbers that are ineligible by position are a part of the numbering exception. The exception is that they don't have to 5 players 50-79 on the line of scrimmage because they are in scrimmage kick formation. That's all the exception is.
Paragraph 5 only tells us who is eligible and who is not and how they may legally line up. There is no requirement that there be a 1 to one match for every player 50-79 that is missing from the line of scrimmage.
The exception applies to the team.
-
Get your butt back to Texas and help me splain that to folks Welpe!
-
(b) Any and all such numbering-exception players must be on the
line and may not be on the end of the line. Otherwise, Team A
commits a foul for an illegal formation.
I understand what you have said but just to clear my mind. What would a formation look like that made it an illegal formation per (b) above?
-
It happens when they line up with exceptions and then shift so those exceptions become uncovered
-
It happens when they line up with exceptions and then shift so those exceptions become uncovered
And the snapper establishes as the snapper. I have been burned on that part once.
-
Who are the numbering exceptions?
IMHO not sure if/why that really matters. The rules require us to identify the eligible vs. ineligible players. In your alignment we can readily do that. The numbering of the internal lineman is irrelevant by rule based on the scrimmage kick numbering exception. We've always been instructed to identify the eligibles which then leaves everyone else ineligible.
-
IMHO not sure if/why that really matters. The rules require us to identify the eligible vs. ineligible players. In your alignment we can readily do that. The numbering of the internal lineman is irrelevant by rule based on the scrimmage kick numbering exception. We've always been instructed to identify the eligibles which then leaves everyone else ineligible.
That is my point. You identify the eligible receivers first and foremost on every play. So does the defense. Now in the formation replace 23 with 78. What do you have?
-
Roy - You are missing the point. If the player is ineligible, then it is an illegal formation. You cant have ineligibles (as exceptions) on the end of the line. The quiz said it was not an illegal formation so those 2 are eligible.
And I await your answer as to which of the 2 you are designating an exception and why
There is no way to identify which player is the exception which is the root of the problem. I don't believe that I'm missing the point. I fully understand the point that for discussion team A can try to confuse team B by not putting the traditional wide guy on each side of the field and then having to determine who's eligible. And further, I don't believe that a simple, plain English reading of the rule means that the numbering exception "overrides" the parent language that requires team A to have 5 players numbered 50-79 (ineligible players) on the line. The exception in plain English IMO ONLY allows for their numbers to be different than the 50-79 set.
-
Get your butt back to Texas and help me splain that to folks Welpe!
Believe you me....I'm more than willing! If only it were that simple.
I don't miss the coaches picks insanity we had here but the NFHS rules insanity isn't so great either. ;)
-
There is no way to identify which player is the exception which is the root of the problem.
Sure there is.
"(a) 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. "
Any player with an eligible number that is an interior lineman. They are all in under the exception. As I wrote before, there's no requirement for a 1 to 1 match for every player 50-79 they are missing.
-
Roy -
All the defense has to do is look at the outside guy on each side. Does he have an eligible number? He is eligible. They should be doing that on every play now already. And if they try to get sneaky by lining up one way and then shifting, they have screwed themselves because that is when we are gonna step in and protect the defense with illegal formation and ineligible downfield calls
-
I know this is a VERY silly question but I have to ask it.
Since there is no longer a requirement for 5 linemen numbered 50 - 79 and there is no one to one replacement required, then by rule, the kicking team could have a legal formation with a snapper and a kicker. Plus the snapper could be #2.
BTW: the info on a shift made a lot of sense after setting the formation. That helped.
-
5 lineman are still required.
-
Since there is no longer a requirement for 5 linemen numbered 50 - 79 and there is no one to one replacement required, then by rule, the kicking team could have a legal formation with a snapper and a kicker. Plus the snapper could be #2.
Correct Go ahead Les Miles, let's see you get something out of that
-
I really do get it. I'm just sick and tired of reading rules changes that are purported to simplify the rules that are written in gibberish.
Why can't the rules simply and clearly state exactly what they mean when they are written. IMHO the entire rule here is very poorly written and could very easily be fixed so we don't have to go thru a process of elimination to figure out if we have a legal formation on a scrimmage kick or not and who's eligible and not eligible. The requirement that there be a minimum of 7 players on the line (two ends not numbered 50-79 + 5 interior players numbered 50-79) gets badly garbled IMO with the current wording of the scrimmage kick numbering exception and leaves a situation where team A can abuse the numbering exception privilege.
Example: 10 or less players on the field all with eligible numbers with one blocking back in front of the kicker and two wide outs on the line. Just before the snap the two wideouts shift into the backfield "uncovering" the two now "tight ends" who, even though there are now only 6 or less players on the line become eligible. That IMHO is taking advantage of a shortcoming in the way the rules are written that should not exist.
-
ROY
As we have said repeatedly, what you just suggested is ILLEGAL under the rule as writtena nd should not be permitted
-
ROY
As we have said repeatedly, what you just suggested is ILLEGAL under the rule as writtena nd should not be permitted
And why is what I suggested illegal? Which rule "as written" are we violating by shifting the two wide outs into the backfield if we have all ten players with eligible numbers and there is only 2 players in the backfield prior to the shift?
And which rule would we be violating if we had 11 eligible numbers in the huddle, with 86 still in from the last play, and with 4 in the backfield 86 heads out toward the wide out position he simply keeps going off to his bench just prior to the snap leaving "tackle" #23 on the end of the line? And that just after the U and the R have confirmed to each other that we have 11 team A players.
-
You have read the rule right? If the team lines up and the snapper is established , everyone inside the ends who is an exception is locked. They cannot be in an eligible position after that. If they are they have fouled. The exception rule makes that clear.
-
And why is what I suggested illegal? Which rule "as written" are we violating by shifting the two wide outs into the backfield if we have all ten players with eligible numbers and there is only 2 players in the backfield prior to the shift?
And which rule would we be violating if we had 11 eligible numbers in the huddle, with 86 still in from the last play, and with 4 in the backfield 86 heads out toward the wide out position he simply keeps going off to his bench just prior to the snap leaving "tackle" #23 on the end of the line? And that just after the U and the R have confirmed to each other that we have 11 team A players.
Let's take an extreme example, as you suggest. Team A has the following 11 players on the field: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. They line up so that players 1-7 are on the line and 8-11 in the backfield with #11 being 10 yards behind the snapper #4 who has touched the ball. Now, if player #1 or #7 moves away from his position at the end of the line (either to backfield or into the team area) and none of the players 8-10 replace him, team A will commit an illegal formation foul at the snap.
If you mean a situation where in the above example #1 never becomes a lineman (continues from the huddle into his team area) the I really don't see what disadvantage team B suffers. They see that team A plays with 10 and see that #2 is the end with an eligible number, thus he needs to be considered a legal receiver. If team A rushes to the line and snaps one second after #1 has gone off the field I think you have a simulated substitution intended to deceive, which is a foul as per 9-2-2-b.
-
Isn't the accepted definition of "when the snapper is established" still when he first touches the ball? If team A is intentionally trying to use the numbering exception rules to their advantage then the lineman at the ball would not set and touch the ball until just before the snap. Is there something in the rules that says just standing in front of the ball determines who the snapper is?
-
Isn't the accepted definition of "when the snapper is established" still when he first touches the ball? If team A is intentionally trying to use the numbering exception rules to their advantage then the lineman at the ball would not set and touch the ball until just before the snap. Is there something in the rules that says just standing in front of the ball determines who the snapper is?
Hmm, it seems that this is something that the rules don't explicitly cover. But, considering the purpose of the numbering exception, I think it should not be legal. I think I would rule a quick action from a standing player behind the ball to "snap" the ball to be a false start. It is a quick movement by an offensive player before the snap. It wouldn't be a stretch to call this an unfair act, either.
-
You have read the rule right? If the team lines up and the snapper is established , everyone inside the ends who is an exception is locked. They cannot be in an eligible position after that. If they are they have fouled. The exception rule makes that clear.
And where do I get the "right reading" of the rule defining exactly when "the snapper is established"?
-
2-27-8
-
And where do I get the "right reading" of the rule defining exactly when "the snapper is established"?
2-27-8
Snapper
ARTICLE 8. The snapper is the player who snaps the ball. He is established
as the snapper when he takes a position behind the ball and touches or
simulates (hand at or below his knees) touching the ball (Rule 7-1-3).
-
Isn't the accepted definition of "when the snapper is established" still when he first touches the ball? If team A is intentionally trying to use the numbering exception rules to their advantage then the lineman at the ball would not set and touch the ball until just before the snap. Is there something in the rules that says just standing in front of the ball determines who the snapper is?
That's the beauty of this rule! The line can shift as many times as they want until the snapper is established by definition. So, in Kalle's example...all 11 players could stand over the ball, it just depends what player establishes himself as the snapper. Once that happens, all eligible receiver numbered players (numbering exceptions on a scrimmage kick) who are interior linemen MUST remain interior linemen the entire play.
-
.... The line can shift as many times as they want until the snapper is established by definition. ....
Which is exactly my point. They can do virtually anything they want until the snapper touches the ball.
-
5 lineman are still required.
There's no actual requirement for a minimum number of linemen in a scrimmage kick formation.
They can't have more than 11 players, more than 4 backs and nobody may be lined up in no man's land but they could have a snapped and 4 backs if they wanted to.
It will be a disaster but they could.
-
I know this is a VERY silly question but I have to ask it.
Since there is no longer a requirement for 5 linemen numbered 50 - 79 and there is no one to one replacement required, then by rule, the kicking team could have a legal formation with a snapper and a kicker. Plus the snapper could be #2.
Follow-up question: #2 here would be eligible, because he is at the end(s) of the line?
-
So here's a little quiz. In what chronological order and what year goes with these rules changes that have resulted in the current Twilight Zone re: scrimmage kick formations when less than 11 are on the field for team A?
- Team A formation rules change from a minimum 7 linemen required on the LOS to no more than 4 in the backfield.
- The scrimmage kick numbering exception added that was intended to allow a "skill player" to snap the ball without putting on an interior lineman numbered jersey.
- Most current wording which allows less that 5 interior lineman on the LOS when a "scrimmage kick is obvious"
- Other changes that should be here affecting the scrimmage kick formation rules?
-
So here's a little quiz. In what chronological order and what year goes with these rules changes that have resulted in the current Twilight Zone re: scrimmage kick formations when less than 11 are on the field for team A?
- Team A formation rules change from a minimum 7 linemen required on the LOS to no more than 4 in the backfield. - Not sure when it was changed but I know it was recent. 5 or so years ago maybe.
- The scrimmage kick numbering exception added that was intended to allow a "skill player" to snap the ball without putting on an interior lineman numbered jersey. - I don't think it was intended to do this but is a byproduct of the rule. This has been a rule for as long as I can remember.
- Most current wording which allows less that 5 interior lineman on the LOS when a "scrimmage kick is obvious" - 2-16-10 is the definition of a scrimmage kick formation. 7-1-4-a-5 talks about numbering exception requirements. Put those together and you have your numbering exception requirements. I remember when I played back in high school, our long snapper was also one of our receivers and he wore 86.
- Other changes that should be here affecting the scrimmage kick formation rules?
See my comments in red. Numbering exception is definitely a confusing rule but if you remember a couple of things it should become easy.
1. Are we in scrimmage kick formation and a kick is obvious? If no - then we have to be numbered legally. If yes - then numbering exceptions apply.
2. Since numbering exceptions apply, all we really need is 5 players on the line and no more then 4 in the backfield.
3. Once the snapper is established, all interior linemen MUST REMAIN interior linemen. If the end shifts and becomes a back, someone better cover that interior linemen before we snap the ball. If he does not get covered, we have an illegal formation.
If all is met, we have a legal play regardless of how many Team A players are on the field.
-
Wasn't the numbering exception also done to allow the long snapper to run downfield immediately after the ball is snapped? I must say as for the formation issue, if I had a dime for every time I've had an illegal formation out of this punt scheme, I could probably buy a full set of gear for the entire crew:
(http://cdn.insidethepylon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/PuntGunnerStillTwo.jpg)
-
Wasn't the numbering exception also done to allow the long snapper to run downfield immediately after the ball is snapped? I must say as for the formation issue, if I had a dime for every time I've had an illegal formation out of this punt scheme, I could probably buy a full set of gear for the entire crew:
NCAA has allowed all linemen to go downfield immediately after the snap on kick plays at least since 1990.
-
So here's the bottom line IMHO. Until the group of rule changes that were done in 2011 & 2012 the "problem" here when we had less than 11 on the field on a scrimmage kick did not exist (we still had to have 7 on the line with 5 interior linemen). Now, if team A "forgets" to send in the full 11 players on a scrimmage kick play, the location of eligible vs ineligible players can be manipulated to team A's advantage.
If team A is in scrimmage kick formation with all players numbered 1 to 49 for the 5th time in the game with the exact same lineup for the 5th time, except this time the wide man on the right side is missing (ie: 10 men in formation) and the "right tackle" (now also the right end due to the missing player) goes downfield and immediately catches a pass from the "kicker" for a first down would you have a flag for an Illegal Formation or a Substitution foul? Isn't intentionally using the substitution process to deceive the opponent a foul under our rules?
If it's obvious and simple common sense that the play was scripted beforehand, and required a "substitution error" to work "legally", what would you call?
-
Wasn't the numbering exception also done to allow the long snapper to run downfield immediately after the ball is snapped? I must say as for the formation issue, if I had a dime for every time I've had an illegal formation out of this punt scheme, I could probably buy a full set of gear for the entire crew:
(http://cdn.insidethepylon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/PuntGunnerStillTwo.jpg)
You mean because the 3rd player on the right hand side of the snapper is in no man's land, correct?
-
Follow-up question: #2 here would be eligible, because he is at the end(s) of the line?
I was wondering this as well.
If the team "can" line up with just 5 players: the snapper (#2) and 4 backs all numbered 1-49, would the snapper be eligible for being on the end of the line? Is Team A allowed to not have any interior linemen?
If yes, then ok.
If no, we have a problem with an inconstantly applied explanation for the original question.
-
I was wondering this as well.
If the team "can" line up with just 5 players: the snapper (#2) and 4 backs all numbered 1-49, would the snapper be eligible for being on the end of the line?
Yes.
Is Team A allowed to not have any interior linemen?
As long as they're in scrimmage kick formation, yes.
-
Here's Rom's take on this from this week's quiz at http://romgilbert.us/quiz16.htm :
4th/10 A40. Team A is lined up in a scrimmage kick formation with six linemen and four backs. The linemen from left to right are 87 75 82 83 84 88. A17's legal forward pass is complete to A87 for a touchdown. A88 was seven yards downfield when the pass was thrown.
Ruling: Touchdown. A try B3. Legal formation. Legal play.
-
So what would you rule here:
4th and long and Team A wholesale subs multiple players in each case and for the 1st three scrimmage kick formations in the game we have 7 linemen, 5 in the "tackle box" (2 wide out by the sidelines) and 4 backs (same players in each case w/"kicker" 15 yards back) and team A punts:
87 ------------ 75 82 83 84 88 ------------- 89
4th scrimmage kick formation, 4th/10 A40. Team A is lined up in a scrimmage kick formation with six linemen, 5 in the "tackle box" (1 wide out by the sideline) and four backs (w/"kicker" 10 yards back). The linemen from left to right are:
87 ------------ 75 82 83 84 88 -------------
"Kicker" A17's legal forward pass is complete to A88 for a touchdown. A88 was seven yards downfield when he caught the pass.
-
If the team B player who is assigned to cover the right end is stupid enough not to cover anybody when he should be covering #89, it is a coaching problem.
Change this to the linemen being a wideout 87, then six men in the box with 75 82 81 83 84 88 with 83 being the snapper. Do you expect somebody to cover 88 here? If so, why wouldn't he be covered if #81 is missing?
-
Don't over complicate your life. This is a legal formation and a TD. And if you even start to tell me you remember the previous formations and the numbering scheme when the 4 th SKF comes around I am calling uiu rain man
-
Not rain man but simple observation. Don't the facts given clearly indicate that team A has used the substitution rules to deceive team B by only sending out 10 players? Given the "coincidence" that this would have been an illegal lineman downfield if there was not a "missing player", it's obvious that the "missing player" was part of the planned play and not a substitution error. Why does this not violate the guidance about using the substitution process to deceive the opponent and gain an advantage?
-
Not rain man but simple observation. Don't the facts given clearly indicate that team A has used the substitution rules to deceive team B by only sending out 10 players? Given the "coincidence" that this would have been an illegal lineman downfield if there was not a "missing player", it's obvious that the "missing player" was part of the planned play and not a substitution error. Why does this not violate the guidance about using the substitution process to deceive the opponent and gain an advantage?
I would say no -- at some point doesn't the defense have an obligation to do their job? This is not a hide out play which is what the unfair tactics rule for abuse of the substitution process is trying to avoid.
-
team A has used the substitution rules to deceive team B by only sending out 10 players?
I don't think you can actually deceive a team by doing something that's legal. The substitution rules prevent several things associated with substitution or the sub process, but they don't prevent this.
Simply because deception becomes illegal when handled in certain ways doesn't mean it is illegal when used in other ways. To me, the play described isn't any different than an eligible number wide out on the line shifting off the line and making a tight end or even an eligible number tackle eligible by position.
-
It's quite simple for Team B. Cover the ends who have eligible numbers and cover the backs with eligible numbers. All other players will be ineligible.
-
Wow... my head is spinning...
7-1-4-a-3 - at least 5 lineman wearing 50-79, except on scrimmage kick formation
7-1-4-a-5 - no need for 5 lineman wearing 50-79 as long as:
(a) 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 is not that we need exceptions to the numbering rule... but every covered eligible receiver becomes the exception. So... why is there an exception?
(b) Any and all such numbering-exception players must be on the line and may not be on the end of the line. Otherwise, Team A commits a foul for an illegal formation.
so if A lines up with 6 at the line, the ends are not ineligible by position, so they don't become exception do the numbering rule.
Again... why is there an exception?
What is the relevance of the exception? Why not just say there is no need for 5 ineligible numbers on the line in scrimmage kick formation?
In any formation, eligible receivers who are covered at the line become ineligible. There is no change there.
The exception is there only to avoid shifting craziness?
What difference does the shifting craziness make if we know that only the two ends with eligible numbers are eligible after all?
-
The history of the rule changes show that the multiple rules "simplifications" made in 2012-2013 badly garbled the required linemen alignment language on scrimmage kick plays.
The result of it all was the effective loss of the clear requirement for a minimum of 5 interior linemen on all scrimmage downs. While in some cases, the absurd ones with some minimal number of players way less than 11 are still "legal" in scrimmage kick formations, the ones that IMHO are a problem are the ones where there is obviously a pre-planned "substitution error" to put 10 players on the field and then mask who the eligible pass receivers are going to be.
The original numbering exception rules were made to allow team A to use the "best players" for scrimmage kicks (the long snapper and defenders for kick returns) without having to change jersey numbers. That change, combined with the alignment rules changes has left an opportunity for intentional abuse by creative coaches.
I've only seen this used in youth football (twice by the same team) but I'm betting that as soon as it gets used in a BCS game and results in a game changing play the rule will be changed.
-
What is the relevance of the exception? Why not just say there is no need for 5 ineligible numbers on the line in scrimmage kick formation?
I think this is due to the change a few years back where team A now may have a legal formation where there are 10 players and a WR is missing from the line. I don't remember if there was any extra information distributed at that time as to which linemen may be missing, but as the rules are now written, on a non-SKF down team A may not have fewer than five linemen numbered 50-79, even if they play with only the snapper and a back, to take an extreme example.
I think team A gains no advantage if they have 10 players, four of which are numbered 50-79 and are on the line together with two eligible numbers at the ends. It seems that some officials think that team A does gain an advantage.
-
The result of it all was the effective loss of the clear requirement for a minimum of 5 interior linemen on all scrimmage downs. While in some cases, the absurd ones with some minimal number of players way less than 11 are still "legal" in scrimmage kick formations, the ones that IMHO are a problem are the ones where there is obviously a pre-planned "substitution error" to put 10 players on the field and then mask who the eligible pass receivers are going to be.
You can mask the eligible receivers from a SKF with 11, so I still fail to see any extra advantage gained by leaving out players.
Play situation: 4th and 20 from B-40. Team A has players numbered 1 through 11 on the field. They line up with A1 11 yards behind the ball. The potential snapper A2 stands upright behind the ball. Players A3-A11 are scattered on the line of scrimmage. With an audible from A1 players A3, A4 and A5 move clearly off the line. A6 and A7 become ends of the line with A8, A9, A10, A11 and A2 being the interior linemen. While A3, A4 and A5 are shifting to the backfield, A2 assumes the normal snapper posture with his hands on the ball. All team A players stop for one second, and A2 snaps the ball while team B is still sorting out the coverage assignments. A3-A7 all run deep passing routes. A1 throws a legal forward pass to A4 who catches the ball in team B's end zone.