Post by: CalhounLJ on February 06, 2021, 07:42:57 AM
12. 22. 32. 42. (S13) 23. 33. 43. 44. 88.
P(99)
How do we determine from this formation who is using the numbering exception?
Post by: CalhounLJ on February 06, 2021, 07:45:53 AM
Suppose A comes out in the formation listed above, snapper places hands on the ball, and they shift into this formation:
22. 32. 42. (S13) 23. 33. 43. 44.
12. 88.
P(99)
Are 22 and 44 eligible now?
Post by: Ump33 on February 06, 2021, 08:23:30 AM
With that in mind, the only eligible receivers in the first play above are the two original ends (12 & 88). In the second play, since 22 & 44 originally lined up between the ends when the snapper “places hand(s) on the ball”, they will remain ineligible.
Post by: NVFOA_Ump on February 06, 2021, 09:35:41 AM
My understanding of the “free numbering” is anyone between the ends are are ineligible when there are not five 50 thru 79 when the snapper “places hand(s) on the ball.”
With that in mind, the only eligible receivers in the first play above are the two original ends (12 & 88). In the second play, since 22 & 44 originally lined up between the ends when the snapper “places hand(s) on the ball”, they will remain ineligible.
I'd agree. Was always taught that the best way to handle "multiple" numbering exception situations is to focus on eligible players, not numbering exceptions.
Post by: CalhounLJ on February 06, 2021, 12:04:43 PM
My understanding of the “free numbering” is anyone between the ends are are ineligible when there are not five 50 thru 79 when the snapper “places hand(s) on the ball.”
With that in mind, the only eligible receivers in the first play above are the two original ends (12 & 88). In the second play, since 22 & 44 originally lined up between the ends when the snapper “places hand(s) on the ball”, they will remain ineligible.
This would certainly make everything easier if that's the case. There's a thought out there that it's just the 5 players who replaced those numbered 50-79 that are restricted at the time the snapper places his hands on the ball. Do y'all know of any specific NFHS guidance to what you're suggesting?
Post by: bossman72 on February 06, 2021, 03:53:55 PM
So in formation #1, the bolded numbers are ineligible:
12. 22. 32. 42. (S13) 23. 33. 43. 44. 88.
P(99)
When you shift into your second example, the same exact people are ineligible, despite being on the end of the line.
Post by: HLinNC on February 06, 2021, 05:17:53 PM
In your example 1, every A/K player from #22-44 (L-R) is in under the exception based on Reddings description as they are all interior linemen. Once the shift occurs in example 2, A/K22 and A/K44 become ends but are still ineligible because they were interior linemen when the snapper placed his hands on the ball.
Post by: CalhounLJ on February 06, 2021, 06:53:58 PM
Reddings explains thusly: For the fourth down/try exception, a player must assume a position on his line between the ends. Once such player assumes that initial position as an interior lineman, he is an ineligible receiver. If a subsequent shift leaves the exempted player in the position of an eligible receiver, he remains ineligible. The exempted players are determined when the snapper touches the ball (72-5b Exc 2 and 7.2.5 E&F).This is the exception in the rulebook:
In your example 1, every A/K player from #22-44 (L-R) is in under the exception based on Reddings description as they are all interior linemen. Once the shift occurs in example 2, A/K22 and A/K44 become ends but are still ineligible because they were interior linemen when the snapper placed his hands on the ball.
2. On fourth down or during a kick try, when A sets or shifts into a scrimmage-kick formation, any A player numbered 1 to 49 or 80 to 99 may take the position of any A player numbered 50 to 79. A player in the game under this exception must assume an initial position on his line of scrimmage between the ends and he remains an ineligible forward-pass receiver during that down unless the pass is touched by B (7-5-6b).
This can easily be read as specific players taking the place of specific players. If that’s the case, we have a five for five swap. How are the others restricted? What in the language leads us to believe we can set aside the normal eligibility rules for those not in under the exception? What I mean by that is that under normal rules, with 5 numbered 50-79 in, the second formation I posted would allow the players uncovered to become eligible. What gives us justification to now say they are not?
Same way in the Redding guide. He says nothing about every player who takes an initial position between the ends remains ineligible throughout, just those who are in using the numbering exception. If it’s a player for player swap, it can only be five.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Post by: NVFOA_Ump on February 06, 2021, 08:15:25 PM
Same way in the Redding guide. He says nothing about every player who takes an initial position between the ends remains ineligible throughout, just those who are in using the numbering exception. If it’s a player for player swap, it can only be five.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Don't agree, and we've hashed this out endlessly before. There is no way to determine "which 5" are numbering exceptions and the way the wording is we've been told to go with the explanation as worded in Redding where ALL non-eligible numbers that originally are interior linemen remain ineligible for the duration of the down. Otherwise that leaves A all kinds of "options" to attempt to confuse the defense by getting "creative" with unbalanced formations, 1 or more shifts, etc. Since there is no way to determine "which specific 5" are the numbering exceptions then we must treat all of them as such.
Post by: CalhounLJ on February 06, 2021, 08:24:44 PM
Don't agree, and we've hashed this out endlessly before. There is no way to determine "which 5" are numbering exceptions and the way the wording is we've been told to go with the explanation as worded in Redding where ALL non-eligible numbers that originally are interior linemen remain ineligible for the duration of the down. Otherwise that leaves A all kinds of "options" to attempt to confuse the defense by getting "creative" with unbalanced formations, 1 or more shifts, etc. Since there is no way to determine "which specific 5" are the numbering exceptions then we must treat all of them as such.Believe me,I’m not trying to rehash just for the sake of argument. I’m trying to get a grip on how to officiate this. Your suggestion would certainly fix the situation, but I’m wondering how “official” it is. I will teach a clinic in the spring on formations, and really need an official interp from NFHS to back up what you’re saying. Does anyone know of such an interpretation?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Post by: bossman72 on February 06, 2021, 08:57:58 PM
This can easily be read as specific players taking the place of specific players.
Like I said before, don't "swap" players. It's impossible to officiate that way. Remember the intent of the rule. The intent is so that the offense can't cover and uncover people with multiple shifts to confuse the defense who is eligible, since everyone will have an eligible number. Once the offense sets with the snapper's hand on the ball, everyone is locked in. It's easier to officiate and it's easier for the defense to recognize eligible and ineligible receivers.
Post by: CalhounLJ on February 07, 2021, 07:19:54 AM
Like I said before, don't "swap" players. It's impossible to officiate that way. Remember the intent of the rule. The intent is so that the offense can't cover and uncover people with multiple shifts to confuse the defense who is eligible, since everyone will have an eligible number. Once the offense sets with the snapper's hand on the ball, everyone is locked in. It's easier to officiate and it's easier for the defense to recognize eligible and ineligible receivers.I agree completely. Maybe I’m not being clear. I have officials (and my assignor) who are reading this as a player for player swap. They believe the wording supports the idea that only those specific players who are in for specific players are restricted.
While I respect the fact that y’all are in on the rule process and understand the intent, they are not going to be convinced just because some guys on a message board say so.
Do we have any official interpretation from the Fed to back up your suggestion?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Post by: CalhounLJ on February 07, 2021, 07:22:40 AM
I need help in a big way.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Post by: HLinNC on February 07, 2021, 09:23:01 AM
Ends and interior linemen don't change.
Post by: CalhounLJ on February 07, 2021, 09:28:35 AM
Depends on how many are in the backfield.Only four. Ten on the field. All 6 on the line wearing receiver numbers. Impossible to have five covered up. I keep telling them it doesnt matter-the four covered up are the ones in under the numbering exception. I’m getting nowhere.
Ends and interior linemen don't change.
They say because a normal formation must have 5 ineligible numbers, so should the exception. In a way I can see their logic, because in a normal formation, even though we can have 6 on the line, there must be 5 numbered 50-79. If the numbering exception is read as a 5 for 5 swap, then there should be 5 ineligible on the line.
A case play repudiating this in the new book would be very welcome. #justsaying
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Post by: CalhounLJ on February 07, 2021, 09:49:57 AM
Don't agree, and we've hashed this out endlessly before. There is no way to determine "which 5" are numbering exceptions and the way the wording is we've been told to go with the explanation as worded in Redding where ALL non-eligible numbers that originally are interior linemen remain ineligible for the duration of the down. Otherwise that leaves A all kinds of "options" to attempt to confuse the defense by getting "creative" with unbalanced formations, 1 or more shifts, etc. Since there is no way to determine "which specific 5" are the numbering exceptions then we must treat all of them as such.
the problem I see with the Redding explanation is this sentence: "If a subsequent shift leaves the EXEMPTED player in the position of an eligible receiver."
Since the exemption specifically deals with receiver numbered players taking the place of linemen numbered players, it's not hard to make the assumption that the Redding guide is talking about those players who come in to replace other players, for a maximum of 5.
It would be very helpful if the exemption in the rulebook simply said that "any and all players lined up between the ends at the moment the snapper places his hands on the ball are ineligible throughout the down, even if a subsequent shift puts them in an otherwise eligible position."
Post by: bossman72 on February 07, 2021, 02:18:47 PM
I agree completely. Maybe I’m not being clear. I have officials (and my assignor) who are reading this as a player for player swap. They believe the wording supports the idea that only those specific players who are in for specific players are restricted.
While I respect the fact that y’all are in on the rule process and understand the intent, they are not going to be convinced just because some guys on a message board say so.
Do we have any official interpretation from the Fed to back up your suggestion?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Can't help you with that unfortunately. They have a good case with the literal wording of the rule. If you explain the intent of the rule to them, maybe they'll understand. They way they are suggesting, it's impossible to officiate and impossible to play defense against. Maybe go down that path of logic with them.
Post by: CalhounLJ on February 07, 2021, 02:56:37 PM
Post by: bama_stripes on February 08, 2021, 07:18:33 AM
Post by: CalhounLJ on February 08, 2021, 07:41:49 AM
Maybe the defense should just cover the backs and ends who are wearing eligible numbers.....Yep. If I’m the coach that’s what I’m telling my players.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Post by: NVFOA_Ump on February 08, 2021, 10:19:02 AM
Maybe the defense should just cover the backs and ends who are wearing eligible numbers.....
So what would you do if 1 count before the snap A42 and A23 shifted into the backfield? Technically you would still have 5 "interior linemen" who were ineligible? The "numbering exceptions"? Unless you lock the ineligibles when the center puts his hands on the ball thereby identifying the eligibles for us and more importantly the defense you've effectively allowed team A to circumvent the clear intent of the numbering exception rule which history says was originally intended to allow the snapper to be substituted for. I would agree 100% that the wording should be improved, but I'm comfortable with the guidelines that we have been given that the ineligible players are locked when the snapper touches the ball.
Post by: CalhounLJ on February 08, 2021, 10:28:39 AM
Now I will begin getting the message out to coaches and officials. Should be a fun spring.
Post by: jgf6 on February 08, 2021, 11:25:21 AM
22 32 42 13 23 43
10 11 12
(P) 15
5 players with numbers 50 - 79 are being replaced by 5 players with receiver numbers as per the exception. However, in order for this to be legal, the players in the game under the exception must line up between the ends. Since there are only 4 that satisfy this requirement, you would have a foul for "Illegal Numbering" but not for an "Illegal Formation". (7-2 Pen.)
Also, numbers 22 & 43 are eligible receivers who may legally catch a forward pass.
Post by: CalhounLJ on February 08, 2021, 11:34:14 AM
Post by: jgf6 on February 08, 2021, 11:41:12 AM
Post by: bossman72 on February 08, 2021, 11:45:35 AM
With 6 players on the LOS wearing eligible numbers, on 4th down in scrimmage kick formation, the formation itself is a legal one.
22 32 42 13 23 43
10 11 12
(P) 15
5 players with numbers 50 - 79 are being replaced by 5 players with receiver numbers as per the exception. However, in order for this to be legal, the players in the game under the exception must line up between the ends. Since there are only 4 that satisfy this requirement, you would have a foul for "Illegal Numbering" but not for an "Illegal Formation". (7-2 Pen.)
Also, numbers 22 & 43 are eligible receivers who may legally catch a forward pass.
Again, this is why I don't "swap". They don't want this as a foul with the ILF rule change the other year. Just make everyone between the ends ineligible and call it a day.
Post by: jgf6 on February 08, 2021, 11:48:02 AM
Post by: jgf6 on February 08, 2021, 11:54:31 AM
Post by: Curious on February 08, 2021, 02:46:47 PM
Post by: CalhounLJ on February 08, 2021, 03:42:15 PM
The eligibility of these linemen is not the question. Of course, they are not eligible. The question is have they satisfied the exception to the lineman numbering rule.Exactly.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk