Ruling?

[SCHSref]

K is in scrimmage kick formation.  After all players are set, A22, who is on the end of the line, goes in motion.  While in motion, the ball is snapped.  A16 throws a forward pass to A22, who gains 20 yds for first down.  Ruling?

[HLinNC]

As long as the motion was legal, ask yourself what would make it illegal.  Just because K is in scrimmage kick formation doesn't require them to kick,

[CalhounLJ]

As long as the motion was legal, ask yourself what would make it illegal.  Just because K is in scrimmage kick formation doesn't require them to kick,

Correct and assuming this has something to do with the numbering exception, nothing prevents an eligible receiver on the end of the line from catching a pass, as long as his initial position was not between the ends.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SCHSref]

Correct and assuming this has something to do with the numbering exception, nothing prevents an eligible receiver on the end of the line from catching a pass, as long as his initial position was not between the ends.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I got the question wrong because I put Legal Play. I posted it because I wondered if there was something in the question which I missed.

[SCHSref]

Apparently, 7.2.7 states that an end cannot be in motion

[bama_stripes]

Poorly worded question.  As HLinNC posted above, it’s legal if the motion itself was legal.  A22’s motion is legal if he is 5 yds behind the LOS at the snap, or if he establishes himself as a back before beginning his motion.  But we’re not told that.

Most rules exams / case books have a caveat that actions are assumed to be legal unless otherwise noted.

[SCHSref]

Poorly worded question. As HLinNC posted above, it’s legal if the motion itself was legal.  A22’s motion is legal if he is 5 yds behind the LOS at the snap, or if he establishes himself as a back before beginning his motion.  But we’re not told that.

Most rules exams / case books have a caveat that actions are assumed to be legal unless otherwise noted.

I don't disagree

[HLinNC]

As Bama noted 7-2-7 states that the "player in motion shall be at least 5 yards behind his LOS at the snap if he started from any position not clearly behind the line......" so no, it doesn't state that an end can't be in motion.

Your issue is with whoever is writing your quiz.

[Ralph Damren]

.....And remember, now that he's 5 yards behind the LOS, do we possibility have 5 players in the vbackfield = illegal formation.

[CalhounLJ]

As Bama noted 7-2-7 states that the "player in motion shall be at least 5 yards behind his LOS at the snap if he started from any position not clearly behind the line......" so no, it doesn't state that an end can't be in motion.

Your issue is with whoever is writing your quiz.

Agree with this. Technically, an end CAN go in motion, as long as he's 5yds behind the LOS at the snap.

[juxone]

Clarification sought.. in a pregame discussion-due to a prior game-- it was said that "A runner can lose possession of a live ball by a fumble, by a forward pass or by a muff", my response was that a runner is defined as "a player who is in possession of a live ball or is simulating possession.." A muff is simply the touching of a ball without gaining possession, therefore a runner cannot lose possession by a muff. Am I missing something? 

[Fatso]

I agree with you.  There was no possession if muffed, it continues to be a loose ball.

[dch]

this tangent should be a new topic -- but here goes anyway.
A runner may loose possession of the ball several ways - a muff is not one of them.  The runner could loose possession of the ball by: fumble, hand off, (legal or illegal), forward pass (legal or illegal), backward pass, kick (legal or illegal)

[juxone]

this tangent should be a new topic -- but here goes anyway.
A runner may loose possession of the ball several ways - a muff is not one of them.  The runner could loose possession of the ball by: fumble, hand off, (legal or illegal), forward pass (legal or illegal), backward pass, kick (legal or illegal)

Sorry, guess you are correct with the "new topic point" my apologies 

[SCHSref]

Clarification sought.. in a pregame discussion-due to a prior game-- it was said that "A runner can lose possession of a live ball by a fumble, by a forward pass or by a muff", my response was that a runner is defined as "a player who is in possession of a live ball or is simulating possession.." A muff is simply the touching of a ball without gaining possession, therefore a runner cannot lose possession by a muff. Am I missing something? 

By definition...a muff is an attempt to GAIN possession, so you can't lose it if you ain't got it. That's like telling Kojak he's losing hair.

[CalhounLJ]

By definition...a muff is an attempt to GAIN possession, so you can't lose it if you ain't got it. That's like telling Kojak he's losing hair.

Does nose hair count?

[Ralph Damren]

Remember, too, that a muff is an ATTEMPT to gain possession and can add a new force. a ball merely touching a player can't. Example....

(1) A1 fumbles as he comes out of his end zone;
(2) ball bounces forward and contacts B1 (big ole' Bubba ogling the prom queen) in the backside , rebounding back and into pylon;
(3) no new force was added =safety.