A question from Pre-Game

[HeadAlphaGeek]

4th and 5 on the B-30. A comes to the line and assumes an initial set in scrimmage kick (FG) formation.
When the snapper touches the ball, Team A has 5 players numbered 50-79. A82 lined up as the right tackle.
Team A then shifts, uncovering 82 and leaving him on the end of the line.
Ball is snapped to A7 who is standing on the B-40. At the snap, A82 runs a route to the B25 and A7 fakes the punt and throws a pass A82 at the B25.

[HLinNC]

Are you asking a question or making a statement?

If the 5 numbered 50-79 are all on the line of scrimmage as linemen, this isn't an exception to the numbering requirement.

[CalhounLJ]

Completed pass. A82 is not in the game under the numbering exception because A is not using it. So, he can be initially covered. As long as he is on the end at the snap and wearing an eligible number he can catch a pass.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HeadAlphaGeek]

I apologize.  Is A82 legal to catch a pass?

[HeadAlphaGeek]

What if I tweak it a little?

4th and 5 on the B-30. A comes to the line and assumes an initial set in scrimmage kick (FG) formation.
When the snapper touches the ball, Team A only has 4 players numbered 50-79. A82 lined up as the right tackle.
Team A then shifts, uncovering 82 and leaving him on the end of the line.
Ball is snapped to A7 who is standing on the B-40. At the snap, A82 runs a route to the B25 and A7 fakes the punt and throws a pass A82 at the B25.

Would A82 still be able to catch a pass?

[bossman72]

All good because they had 5 players 50-79 on the LOS.

Had they not, A82 becomes locked in as ineligible when the center touches the ball, no matter where he ends up.

[CalhounLJ]

What if I tweak it a little?

4th and 5 on the B-30. A comes to the line and assumes an initial set in scrimmage kick (FG) formation.
When the snapper touches the ball, Team A only has 4 players numbered 50-79. A82 lined up as the right tackle.
Team A then shifts, uncovering 82 and leaving him on the end of the line.
Ball is snapped to A7 who is standing on the B-40. At the snap, A82 runs a route to the B25 and A7 fakes the punt and throws a pass A82 at the B25.

Would A82 still be able to catch a pass?

No in this case you have what you’re looking for. When A uses the numbering exception on 4th down, the player (s) in under the exception must take an initial position between the ends and are ineligible. No matter if/when they eventually shift to an eligible position.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HeadAlphaGeek]

I agree with what everyone is saying, but what if A82 is not the player under the exception.  What if the snapper is also A49 and the others are 50-79? Then A82 would not be under the exception and eligible for a pass?

[CalhounLJ]

I agree with what everyone is saying, but what if A82 is not the player under the exception.  What if the snapper is also A49 and the others are 50-79? Then A82 would not be under the exception and eligible for a pass?

If A82 is not in under the exception, he may line up covered, become uncovered, and be eligible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NVFOA_Ump]

I agree with what everyone is saying, but what if A82 is not the player under the exception.  What if the snapper is also A49 and the others are 50-79? Then A82 would not be under the exception and eligible for a pass?

I agree with what everyone is saying, but what if A82 is not the player under the exception.  What if the snapper is also A49 and the other 4 interior linemen are 50-79? Then A82 would not be under the exception and eligible for a pass?

83   79  78  49  54  61 82

If this is what you've got at the snap then A82 is OK.

[HLinNC]

Kind of what Calhoun already said-

If A82 is not in under the exception, he may line up covered, become uncovered, and be eligible.

[ncwingman]

Let me answer the question I think you're trying to imply.

Modifying NVFOA's line slightly (still implying a scrimmage kick formation on 4th down):

79  83  78  49  54  61  82

Snapper 49 puts his hands on the ball, and then A shifts to:

  83  78  49  54  61  79  82

In this situation, because A did not have 5 players numbered 50-79 on the line and 83 took an initial position between the ends, he is now in the game under the numbering exception. If we're using the numbering exception, all players between the ends become ineligible (and remain so) as soon as the snapper puts his hands on the ball (Case play 7.2.5E uses this wording, albeit not the exact scenario).

This gives A 6 players on the line either numbered 50-79 or in the game under the numbering exception, which is perfectly legal, but just means they have one fewer eligible receiver.

[CalhounLJ]

Let me answer the question I think you're trying to imply.

Modifying NVFOA's line slightly (still implying a scrimmage kick formation on 4th down):

79  83  78  49  54  61  82

Snapper 49 puts his hands on the ball, and then A shifts to:

  83  78  49  54  61  79  82

In this situation, because A did not have 5 players numbered 50-79 on the line and 83 took an initial position between the ends, he is now in the game under the numbering exception. If we're using the numbering exception, all players between the ends become ineligible (and remain so) as soon as the snapper puts his hands on the ball (Case play 7.2.5E uses this wording, albeit not the exact scenario).

This gives A 6 players on the line either numbered 50-79 or in the game under the numbering exception, which is perfectly legal, but just means they have one fewer eligible receiver.

Except that the rule doesn't say that. There is no mention of "all players" in the rule. It specifically states:

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).

Any player may take the position of any player..
The player (s) in the game under the exception are the ones who actually replace the actual players. This in no way implies that every player wearing an eligible number is in under the exception.

The casebook play is really not much help because it follows this pattern of "any player may replace any player." A34 replaces a "lineman", A25 replaces a "lineman", and A86 replaces a "lineman". A64 and A66 are the other two. Add them up and they equal 5. What would really be relevant and a big help would be a caseplay that has another eligible that takes an initial position between the ends. Then you would have more eligible numbers than replaced players.  That would match the situation we are discussing.

[ncwingman]

Except that the rule doesn't say that. There is no mention of "all players" in the rule. It specifically states:

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).

Any player may take the position of any player..
The player (s) in the game under the exception are the ones who actually replace the actual players. This in no way implies that every player wearing an eligible number is in under the exception.

The casebook play is really not much help because it follows this pattern of "any player may replace any player." A34 replaces a "lineman", A25 replaces a "lineman", and A86 replaces a "lineman". A64 and A66 are the other two. Add them up and they equal 5. What would really be relevant and a big help would be a caseplay that has another eligible that takes an initial position between the ends. Then you would have more eligible numbers than replaced players.  That would match the situation we are discussing.

4th down, scrimmage kick formation. A's linemen line up like this, when A49 puts his hands on the ball.

79  83  78  49  54  61  82

A then shifts into this formation:

83  79  78  49  54  61  82

Is 83 an eligible receiver?

Alternatively, what if A shifted into this formation instead:

82  54  61  79  83  78  49

Is 49 an eligible receiver?


What if A shifted through all three? First-second-third or first-third-second? Who is eligible?


The problem here is that both 83 and 49 took an *initial position* between the ends, which is what triggers the numbering exception rule. If they are in the game under the exception, then they remain ineligible throughout the down, regardless of shifts. You should know who is and is not eligible due to the numbering exception *based on the initial formation*. It would seem to me to violate the sprit of the rule if you have a Schrodniger's eligibility question where you don't know who is or is not in the game under the numbering exception until they shift and the answer may change based upon how they shift.

[CalhounLJ]

So you're saying that any/all players that take an initial position inside the ends on a kick formation when the numbering exception is used, no matter how many numbers are exchanged are ineligible throughout the down?

Let me try and get this straight.

1.    2.    3.    4.    5.    6.    7.    8.   9.   10.


                          11. in position to punt.

Your position is that players 2-9 are all ineligible because they took an initial position between the ends? So, if 1 and 10 back off, 2 and 9 are still ineligible?

[CalhounLJ]

The problem here is that both 83 and 49 took an *initial position* between the ends, which is what triggers the numbering exception rule. If they are in the game under the exception, then they remain ineligible throughout the down, regardless of shifts. You should know who is and is not eligible due to the numbering exception *based on the initial formation*. It would seem to me to violate the sprit of the rule if you have a Schrodniger's eligibility question where you don't know who is or is not in the game under the numbering exception until they shift and the answer may change based upon how they shift.

I don't think eligible's taking an initial position between the ends is what triggers the numbering exception. I think replacing ineligible numbers with eligible numbers is what triggers the numbering exception. If there is one number replaced, there has to be at least one number take a position inside the ends. IMO, that doesn't preclude other eligibles from taking a position inside the ends.

[ncwingman]

The issue that it leads to a no-mans-land situation. Either you are in the game under the numbering exception, or you are not.

If the 4th down, scrimmage kick formation linemen are:

79  83  78  49  54  61  82

When the snapper puts his hands on the ball, all those players invoking the exception are now ineligible receivers, including after any legal shifts.

Who are they?

If you cannot identify those players, we have a problem. Maybe that problem is that the rule needs clarification, but the answer cannot be "I don't know, we'll have to see what A does a second before the snap" as the intent of the rule is to prevent last second eligibility shenanigans.

[CalhounLJ]

I don't think the problem is as dire as you suggest. In the first place, if there is not a shift in the formation you posted, we don't have a problem. we have 4 ineligible numbers, and at least one eligible number replacing him, so the formation is legal.

If by chance they shift from this formation and uncover one of those eligible numbers, we still have a legal formation, because the other number still fulfills the requirements put forth by the exception.

If by chance they shift both eligible numbers to eligible positions, we are still good, as long as they don't throw the ball, because nothing in the exception states that the players have to remain between the ends. The only restriction is that one of them remains ineligible.

In the event they both shift to eligible positions and one goes out for a pass, the formation and the play is still legal, because the team has fulfilled the requirements of the exception. The eligible number replacement has taken an initial position inside the ends, and because he is ineligible, has not gone out for a pass. To my knowledge, nothing prevents a player in under the numbering exception to take a position that normally would be an eligible position. He is simply ineligible because of the fact that he initially took a position between the ends.

The only problem we have is if both go out for a pass, which is really not a problem, because we automatically have a foul for illegal numbering, ineligible receiver downfield, and, should he touch the ball, illegal touching by an ineligible.

[CalhounLJ]

Another thought to consider: If I'm Defensive coach, I'm really only worried about 6 possible players; the two guys on the ends, and the potential 4 in the backfield. I'm telling my defense to cover those guys, no matter where they've been in the formation. I'm leaving the eligibility issue up to the zebras. So it's really no problem at all. The worst thing about it is A sending a guy covered up out for a pass. Hopefully we can catch that.

[HLinNC]

Actually, ncwingman has it right.  Perhaps if the rule was reworded from this:

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).


to this:    2. On fourth down or during a kick try, any A player numbered 1 to 49 or 80 to 99 may take the position of any A player [normally] 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 when A sets or shifts into a scrimmage-kick formation, and he remains an ineligible forward-pass receiver during that down unless the pass is touched by B (7-5-6b).

[CalhounLJ]

I don’t see the difference in the two, except by using normally you are suggesting a particular position? Such as guard or tackle position? I don’t see how that helps, because we are talking about specific numbers on jerseys and the requirement that entails.

The other change is simply a rewording that gives no help at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CalhounLJ]

But regardless, it’s a moot point because it’s not what the rule says. The rule is clear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dammitbobby]

I'm not NHFS (and I know this is the NHFS board), but is this rule the same as NCAA?  Before I go through it and try to understand and learn from it, want to make sure it's the right rulebook for me.  I don't know if the NCAA rulebook is the same or not on this topic.

[CalhounLJ]

I don’t have a clue. I don’t study NCAA rules


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ncwingman]

I don't think the problem is as dire as you suggest. In the first place, if there is not a shift in the formation you posted, we don't have a problem. we have 4 ineligible numbers, and at least one eligible number replacing him, so the formation is legal.

I agree this is not a dire situation. 99.99% of the time, when A sets or shifts into a scrimmage kick formation on 4th down, we then have a scrimmage kick and all of this is functionally moot. Of the remaining 0.01%, an even smaller fraction of the remaining plays involves the necessary shift followed by a forward pass. I'd put the likelyhood of this being an issue only slightly above the odds of "Defense electing to kickoff after a score".

In the event they both shift to eligible positions and one goes out for a pass, the formation and the play is still legal, because the team has fulfilled the requirements of the exception. The eligible number replacement has taken an initial position inside the ends, and because he is ineligible, has not gone out for a pass. To my knowledge, nothing prevents a player in under the numbering exception to take a position that normally would be an eligible position. He is simply ineligible because of the fact that he initially took a position between the ends.

The only problem we have is if both go out for a pass, which is really not a problem, because we automatically have a foul for illegal numbering, ineligible receiver downfield, and, should he touch the ball, illegal touching by an ineligible.

This is where I disagree about the lack of a problem. If they both shift to eligible positions, one of them is still ineligible because of the numbering exception -- but you can't look at the presnap formation and tell me which one.