Covered?

[MBK]

If an offensive formation has a receiver in no man’s land outside a tight end, is the tight end considered covered/ineligible? Or do we just have an illegal formation? While illegal formation and ineligible down field have the same enforcement for a down field pass, I saw a video where the tight end caught a pass and was hit for illegal touching with a loss of down which was deemed correct by the video’s moderator but I don’t see support for this interpretation in the rule book.

[dammitbobby]

Was the receiver in 'no man's land' (not sure what this is)) covering up the TE, or was he a back?

[NVFOA_Ump]

If an offensive formation has a receiver in no man’s land outside a tight end, is the tight end considered covered/ineligible? Or do we just have an illegal formation? While illegal formation and ineligible down field have the same enforcement for a down field pass, I saw a video where the tight end caught a pass and was hit for illegal touching with a loss of down which was deemed correct by the video’s moderator but I don’t see support for this interpretation in the rule book.

We've been instructed that there is no "no man's land".  We must decide if the player is either on the line or in the backfield no "3rd option".

[CalhounLJ]

If an offensive formation has a receiver in no man’s land outside a tight end, is the tight end considered covered/ineligible? Or do we just have an illegal formation? While illegal formation and ineligible down field have the same enforcement for a down field pass, I saw a video where the tight end caught a pass and was hit for illegal touching with a loss of down which was deemed correct by the video’s moderator but I don’t see support for this interpretation in the rule book.

NFHS declares this an illegal formation. The TE would not be covered because the player in question is by definition, "not on the line." However, I always instructed my crew to call it like NVFOA. If he's not clearly on the line, he's off.

[Etref]

We call it tain’t zone

Tain’t on the line, tain’t off the line

[Fatso]

I saw a video where the tight end caught a pass and was hit for illegal touching with a loss of down which was deemed correct by the video’s moderator but I don’t see support for this interpretation in the rule book.

Rule book support would be an ineligible player was first to intentionally touch a pass (rule 7-5-13).    (assuming the short wing ruled he was covered)