Covered Receivers

[Derek Teigen]

Just sitting here visualizing some plays in my head and wondering the following:

1.  Can there be defensive pass interference or defensive holding against an ineligible receiver?

2.  Can there be offensive pass interference on an ineligible receiver ?

3.  In the following formation is there a a covered receiver?  Far receiver (7) is 'off' the line;  slot receiver (6)  is 'on' the line; the receiver nearest the line (5) is also 'on' the line;  a tight end (4) to that side is also 'on' the line.

  X X 0 X X 4        5      6   
        X                                    7
    X       
     

[js in sc]

I will give it a try.
1.  No DPI, but holding is holding regardless of whether the A player is eligible or not.
2.  Yes if the pass crosses the line.
3.  4 and 5 are covered.

[bossman72]

Just sitting here visualizing some plays in my head and wondering the following:

1.  Can there be defensive pass interference or defensive holding against an ineligible receiver?

2.  Can there be offensive pass interference on an ineligible receiver ?

3.  In the following formation is there a a covered receiver?  Far receiver (7) is 'off' the line;  slot receiver (6)  is 'on' the line; the receiver nearest the line (5) is also 'on' the line;  a tight end (4) to that side is also 'on' the line.

  X X 0 X X 4        5      6   
        X                                    7
    X       
     

1) Definitely holding.  Think about "pull and shoots" that happen with the interior line.  DPI, no.
2) Absolutely.  Blocking down field or pick plays can be done by anybody and are fouls.  A push-off by a covered receiver would be a foul too.
3) 4 and 5 are covered and ineligible.

[Derek Teigen]

1) Definitely holding.  Think about "pull and shoots" that happen with the interior line.  DPI, no.
2) Absolutely.  Blocking down field or pick plays can be done by anybody and are fouls.  A push-off by a covered receiver would be a foul too.
3) 4 and 5 are covered and ineligible.

thank you.  I think the 'blocking downfield' is something I need to focus on next year.  I was not looking for that at all, and I saw that it became an issue late in the Rose Bowl game when with Wisconsin driving they got called for a receiver blocking downfield and their first down was negated.   So a receiver cannot be blocking and then disengage to receive a pass.  Or a receiver cannot be blocking a defender who is trying to get to the intended receiver.

Ok how about on this formation.  Is there a covered receiver?

X   X   0   X   X   1                   2                 
          X                      3                             4

     X

[prab]

1 is covered, however with seven on the line and four in the backfield, 1 was probably not planning on being eligible any way.

[Derek Teigen]

thank you Prab, Bossman and JS in SC.  appreciate it.

[AlUpstateNY]

1 is covered, however with seven on the line and four in the backfield, 1 was probably not planning on being eligible any way.

NFHS:7-5-6-a/b Describes eligible "A" receivers as:

a. All "A" players eligible by position and number including those, who at the time of the snap, are on the ends of their scrimmage line or legally behind the line (possible total of SIX) and are numbered 1-49  or 80-99 (EXCEPTION 2, 7-2-5b)

b. All "A" players BECOME eligible when "B" touches a legal forward pass.

[HLinNC]

There are quite a few formations at the HS level where a covered receiver is intentional.  Some offenses will overload for what will be a power run play.  I know my son's team, which was triple option, would cover their TE on certain plays.  They might even throw out of it but the TE would be staying into block but it was primarily a run.

Make note of it when looking at your formation but don't get excited about it and flag what turns out to be a running play.

[Ralph Damren]

Good questions ,Derek ,it's great to hear that you are studying during the off-season ! The "X" on the left end of the line could become an eligible if he wore an eligible number. Prior to 2006, an ineligible went down field and touched a pass it was OPI. That was felt to be an overkill and is now only illegal touching.
 

[Derek Teigen]

Good questions ,Derek ,it's great to hear that you are studying during the off-season ! The "X" on the left end of the line could become an eligible if he wore an eligible number. Prior to 2006, an ineligible went down field and touched a pass it was OPI. That was felt to be an overkill and is now only illegal touching.
 

got it.  Thanks Ralph.  I have to look for this more next year but I wonder why most teams don't just make one their tackles a receiver number because you only have to have 4 on the line with numbers 50-79.  so it might look like this where both ends of the line are eligible?  What am I missing here?

         80       53       50        52     58    82                     86     

                              12                                      84                          88

                    44


thank you.

[js in sc]

got it.  Thanks Ralph.  I have to look for this more next year but I wonder why most teams don't just make one their tackles a receiver number because you only have to have 4 on the line with numbers 50-79.  so it might look like this where both ends of the line are eligible?  What am I missing here?

         80       53       50        52     58    82                     86     

                              12                                      84                          88

                    44


thank you.

When did they change 7-2-5b from 5 to 4 numbered 50-79?

[HLinNC]

You can have six on the line now but five of them still have to be 50-79.

[Derek Teigen]

When did they change 7-2-5b from 5 to 4 numbered 50-79?

sorry about that.  I didn't have my rule book with me and I googled an old rule book I think it might have been 2012 or 2014 something like that.  I thought it was 5 numbered 50-70 but was surprised the rule book said 4.  I wonder if they changed the rule to avoid the scenario I just described.

[bama_stripes]

The requirement has always been 5, except in scrimmage kick formation on downs 1-3.  Then you can have only 4, but the 5th has to be the snapper and can’t be on the end of the line.

[VALJ]

got it.  Thanks Ralph.  I have to look for this more next year but I wonder why most teams don't just make one their tackles a receiver number because you only have to have 4 on the line with numbers 50-79.  so it might look like this where both ends of the line are eligible?  What am I missing here?

         80       53       50        52     58    82                     86     

                              12                                      84                          88

                    44


thank you.

By rule, unless you're using the scrimmage kick numbering exception, here must be 5 Bubbas wearing 50-79 on the line of scrimmage.  This numbering would be legal on 4th down in a scrimmage kick formation, assuming 12 is deep enough to qualify, but in that case, 82 is ineligible by position. 

[KDJBBBJ]

2.  Can there be offensive pass interference on an ineligible receiver ?

There are no ineligble defensive recievers.  7.6.b All B players are eligible.

Just to keep you mind straight and one less thing to worry about.

[Magician]

2.  Can there be offensive pass interference on an ineligible receiver ?

There are no ineligble defensive recievers.  7.6.b All B players are eligible.

Just to keep you mind straight and one less thing to worry about.

Yes, an ineligible player can be guilty of offensive pass interference. It's rare, but it can happen. Let's say #50 or a covered #80 are blocking downfield in the area where the pass is thrown, they are guilty of OPI and likely IDP as well. If a covered #80 is blocking downfield on any legal forward pass beyond the NZ I would definitely consider OPI because the defense doesn't necessarily know he's ineligible.

[bama_stripes]

If a covered #80 is blocking downfield on any legal forward pass beyond the NZ I would definitely consider OPI because the defense doesn't necessarily know he's ineligible.

I’d be leery of calling OPI unless the defender had a reasonable chance of getting to the ball.

[KDJBBBJ]

The way I read i t was OPI against an ineligble defensive player.  Yes an ineliglble offensive palyer can be guilty of OPI.   Several ways.

[HLinNC]

They changed the rule to "no more than 4 in the backfield" because it was illogical to penalize a team who was inadvertently playing with 10 players on offense.  Secondary approach- its easier to count 4 backs than 7 mis-sized o-linemen.