Author Topic: Legal Formation?  (Read 607 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JDM

  • *
  • Posts: 224
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-2
Legal Formation?
« on: October 17, 2020, 09:49:57 PM »
Ball was snapped with Team A in this formation. Thoughts? (no flag)
« Last Edit: October 22, 2020, 12:15:28 PM by JDM »

Offline Clear Lake ref

  • *
  • Posts: 170
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-1
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Legal Formation?
« Reply #1 on: October 17, 2020, 10:42:08 PM »
No.

Offline Kalle

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3035
  • FAN REACTION: +105/-34
Re: Legal Formation?
« Reply #2 on: October 18, 2020, 01:44:08 AM »
I don't see any staggering on the WR so I'd like this to be flagged.

Online ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 1740
  • FAN REACTION: +101/-78
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Legal Formation?
« Reply #3 on: October 18, 2020, 09:04:11 AM »
(Assuming the ball was snapped with Team A in this formation) We all recognize that there are, indeed, 5 offensive players in the backfield, and a foul would, I believe, have been supported by the coordinator.
However, on the presumption that the right end in this formation was, undoubtedly, wearing a number 50 thru 79, there should have been no confusion on the part of Team B as to which players of Team A were eligible. Indeed, the eligible players appear to be covered by appropriate opponents, and there is no linebacker or defensive back paying attention to the ineligible end. Other than, possibly, a slightly greater initial separation between the right flanker and the cornerback - which can be a significant difference with this level of players - there is no advantage gained by Team A. So, passing on this call, if consciously done, can be understood, and, perhaps, not downgraded (if not fully supported).
I have a feeling the CB would have been that far off the flanker, even the flanker had been the end. The other corner is a nearly identical distance off of his end. If they are coached for maximum press, the other corner would have been at least a step forward - roughly in line with the corner over the flanker. But he wasnt. So, Id say the corners were where they would have been (off the receiver) regardless if the receivers were on or off the line.
Id be more concerned if this was just missed, rather than consciously passed by the wing. But, I doubt well ever know.

Offline TxBJ

  • *
  • Posts: 307
  • FAN REACTION: +9/-5
Re: Legal Formation?
« Reply #4 on: October 19, 2020, 01:02:18 AM »
This has to be flagged. However, Ive always wondered why there is a rule about only 4 in the backfield. As long as there are five ineligibles numbered 50-79 on the line, who cares where the eligible numbers line up. The defense knows to cover them. Im sure Im missing something obvious but does anyone know a good reason for the rule?

Offline Kalle

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3035
  • FAN REACTION: +105/-34
Re: Legal Formation?
« Reply #5 on: October 19, 2020, 03:31:57 AM »
Well, if you allow eligible numbers to line up anywhere, you end up with extra effort for defense and the officials to determine eligible receivers. I too don't really see any advantage with the ends of the line (let's say that all players lined up at the line between players numbered 50-79 are ineligible, all others are eligible), but if you have the middle lineman who is also the snapper with an eligible number, that would be "too" confusing in my opinion. Yes, you could then have a formation with five eligible receivers on the line to one side, but that would not be a major change, IMO.

Online ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 1740
  • FAN REACTION: +101/-78
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Legal Formation?
« Reply #6 on: October 19, 2020, 05:29:07 AM »
For many decades, A had to have 7 linemen - no reference to how many backs. This started long before the dominance of the passing game, and Im sure it was related to running the football. Im guessing that before that, if you could have 5 or 6 backs, you could set up quite a blocking wall for the BC, which could gain a lot of momentum after the snap and before they engaged the opponents. Also, the more backs, the more confusion regarding who might have the ball (which is OK, to a certain point). Requiring 7 linemen mitigated all of that.
The change to a maximum number of backs maintained that principal, but eliminated a foul for not having enough on the line, which, if they only had 10 players on the field, was no advantage to Team A, so why penalize them?

Offline Etref

  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 1976
  • FAN REACTION: +68/-22
  • " I don't make the rules coach!"
Re: Legal Formation?
« Reply #7 on: October 19, 2020, 09:01:38 PM »
And the coach always wants to know which one  pi1eOn
" I don't make the rules coach!"

Offline JDM

  • *
  • Posts: 224
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-2
Re: Legal Formation?
« Reply #8 on: October 21, 2020, 12:21:46 PM »
And the coach always wants to know which one  pi1eOn

 :thumbup

Offline BIG UMP

  • *
  • Posts: 211
  • FAN REACTION: +7/-1
Re: Legal Formation?
« Reply #9 on: October 21, 2020, 02:00:41 PM »
With a still I can't make a decision.  Right after the picture a receiver may have moved up to the LOS.
But, if the ball was snapped at this time, ILF.
Big Ump
aka Shawn

"EVERY JOB IS A SELF-PORTRAIT OF THE PERSON WHO DID IT.  AUTOGRAPH YOUR WORK WITH EXCELLENCE."~unknown

Offline yarnnelg

  • *
  • Posts: 884
  • FAN REACTION: +54/-32
Re: Legal Formation?
« Reply #10 on: October 24, 2020, 04:52:31 PM »
If he moved up. But, If I'm the wing and told him he  was on ...my bad, flag stays in my waist band.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2020, 01:53:58 PM by yarnnelg »