To all TASO members that participated in the off-season webinar last night, please accept my most sincere apology for my partially incorrect reply to a question by a member in the Q&A window. So, I will use this opportunity to correct myself, and further discuss the topic that was being presented at the time.
As part of the presentation of rule changes that have been approved by the NCAA for 2026, the change to eligibility from a Scrimmage Kick Formation was being reviewed. The change to the rule is that the snapper and the two linemen on either side of the snapper who are within (or touching) the tackle box (typically, up to 5 total linemen) are ineligible, regardless of number, and regardless if the lineman happens to be an “end” (as defined) with a number other than 50-79 (as might occur in an ‘unbalanced’ formation). This is intended to prevent Team A from confusing Team B as to which players are eligible.
A member then asked a question regarding having wide receivers off the line, leaving a player wearing a number 50-79 ‘uncovered,’ and, “Is that an illegal formation?” The short answer is, “No,” at least not in, and of, itself. For ANY scrimmage down, Team A only needs to have 5 linemen wearing numbers 50-79, OR be in a scrimmage kick formation, in which case, all interior linemen (regardless of number) are ineligible by position. So, a formation with NO player wearing an eligible number is perfectly legal. It just means that they don’t have any player that can touch a legal forward pass before it is touched by an opponent. An unbalanced line (even with less than 7 linemen) is not illegal, but it may not qualify as a Scrimmage Kick Formation (as defined), because it may not be “obvious a scrimmage kick will be made.
Before 2009, Team A was required to have a certain minimum number of linemen at the snap. In 2009, Redding eliminated the requirement for a minimum number of linemen, and added the prohibition for more than 4 backs. Since I had officiated - and taught - with the ‘old’ rule for 37 seasons before the rule was changed, in my haste to answer the member’s question last night, my mind simply reverted to the old rule, and I made an incorrect statement regarding the minimum number of required linemen. For that, I profusely apologize to anyone who may have seen that reply. Please check rule 7-1-4 carefully.
