Scrimmage Kick Formation (Numbering Exception w/ 10 Team A players)

[TXMike]

It happens when they line up with exceptions and then shift so those exceptions become uncovered

[FatboyHL]

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. 

[NVFOA_Ump]

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.

[FatboyHL]

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? 

[NVFOA_Ump]

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.

[Welpe]

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. 

[Welpe]

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.

[TXMike]

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

[centexsports]

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.

[Clear Lake ref]

5 lineman are still required.

[TXMike]

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

[NVFOA_Ump]

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.

[TXMike]

ROY
As we have said repeatedly, what you just suggested is ILLEGAL under the rule as writtena nd should not be permitted

[NVFOA_Ump]

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.

[TXMike]

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.

[Kalle]

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.

[NVFOA_Ump]

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?

[Kalle]

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.

[NVFOA_Ump]

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"?

[TXMike]

2-27-8

[TxSkyBolt]

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).

[BlindZebra]

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.

[NVFOA_Ump]

.... 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.

[Welpe]

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.

[#92]

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?