Yes it's a foul at the snap, but we would/should know that B can't use the numbering exceptions in the gate, so they would have to shift back or they can't run a legal play. (assuming, of course, that they actually invoked the exception in the first place.)
Really hope we get a precise rule and ARs out of this.
“B” ? I think meant “A”. (?)
The current ‘rules’ don’t truly address offset formations, which are the problem. Shaw issued rulings, by bulletin play situations, that pretty well make ‘swinging gate’ formations NOT scrimmage kick formations, so Team A must comply with mandatory numbering. But coaches don’t read/study rules, so they don’t know that the ‘gate’ isn’t a SKF, and they must comply with mandatory numbering. Then they challenge us and tell us we don’t know the rules, blah, blah, blah…
So, I am hoping this new rule will explicitly REQUIRE that, in addition to all of the current SKF requirements, there must be two linemen
on each side of the snapper, in order to qualify as a SKF, and permit numbering exceptions. The snapper and those four linemen would be ineligible by position, even if one of those linemen is positioned on the end of the line. Then by rule, a swinging gate formation would not qualify as a SKF. They may still use a ‘gate’ formation, but they must comply with mandatory numbering, and the snapper doesn’t have any special protection (as he would in a true SKF).
Having two ineligible linemen on each side of the snapper renders a swinging gate formation pretty much useless. But, we’ll probaby still see it, even if we get the rule I am hoping for.
But, we musty stay tuned. I am hearing that some number of NCAA coaches don’t like this SKF proposal. The PROP meets on Wednesday, so, who knows what we’ll end up with.
Recent Posts