Begging for some help

[ElvisLives]

If anyone out there will be in a high level NCAA meeting (especially if Shaw is present) where the 2026 NCAA Rules changes will be discussed, when they talk about the change to the Scrimmage Kick Formation numbering exceptions, please get confirmation that the intent is to require that there be two linemen adjacent to the snapper, ON EACH SIDE OF THE SNAPPER. Grammatically, the current word “either” can mean “both” sides, but it can also mean “one side or the other,” and not necessarily BOTH. I HOPE the intent is to require two linemen on EACH side (both sides) of the snapper. (If so, “each” is a much better word.”)

And then let us know.

[Snapper]

Here you go.

I don't see these posted on RefQuest yet.  But my boss passed these along to us this evening.  Shaw addresses both the new scrimmage kick numbering exceptions and the new kick after a fair catch.

For me, they are overall quite helpful.

[bctgp]

Thank you!

[ElvisLives]

Yay! There you go. So, now we know positively that Team A must have two adjacent linemen on EACH (both) sides of the snapper to qualify as a SKF, and all 5 of those players are ineligible by position. Works for me.

And we now know that a Fair Catch Kick is nearly a Kickoff to start the down (but has to be a field goal place kick with a holder, or a drop kick). The alignment/formation for both teams is the same. The game clock starts on the kick. After that, the down is treated as a scrimmage kick, including the next down if it fails to score, and the kicked ball is untouched by Team B (i.e., B-20, if dead beyond the B-20, or previous spot if dead behind the B-20).

👍

[dammitbobby]

On the scrimmage kick numbering exceptions:

That's interesting that the snapper's hands don't matter now - position is established when he takes his position, i.e., lines up over the ball. There will be coaches who are going to try to take advantage of this change and get cute trying to move players around, and won't realize that 'hands on the ball' isn't a criteria anymore. I do wish they'd clarify in the rule language that taking his position means just that - not hands on the ball (it's in the AR). So as I read AR 1, as soon as he is lined up, no movement, no motion (of the 2x2 personnel). I'm not sure I understand why this is a live-ball foul, I'm not sure how, if they can't move, and they do, that it isn't an immediate foul? How can they remedy that (moving prior to the snap) when they're not allowed to?

So, as I am visualizing this, for a swinging gate, we have to make a mental note of the numbers and make sure we have 5 lineman. If there are not 5 lineman = no swinging gate is legal, since the linemen can't move once the center has taken his position. From AR 5, they can line up this way, they just can't shift into a swinging gate (without 5 numbered 50-79).

Anything I am missing?

[ElvisLives]

They can avoid a foul by taking an available time out. So, a ‘live-ball’ foul is appropriate, IMHO.

Otherwise, yeah, we have to be aware of numbering. If it was easy, anybody could do it. And that’s why we get paid the big bucks. 😳  😂

[bossman72]

They can also hypothetically shift back to where they were when they were locked in.

[dammitbobby]

...

[dammitbobby]

They can also hypothetically shift back to where they were when they were locked in.

can they though?

As I read this, I think it's pretty clear they are cemented into position when the snapper takes his position, and the intent of the rule IMO is to to restrict movement in general along with relocation.

(c) Once a player is established as a numbering exception, they may not shift or move to another position.

side note - IMO this is confusing language since a shift by definition involves two or more offensive players (2-22-1-a) and this is specifically talking about a single player

[ElvisLives]

We’ll need a little more clarification, but, I concur that the current language is clear that those 5 can’t move to another position, once they’ve taken their positions in a SKF, and it would be False Start foul if they try (just like it has been for the snapper in the past). Whether a single player moving, or a shift (as defined), those 5 can’t change position(s). Although, I would let them change among themselves; they just gotta stay clustered as the “fixed five.” [I’m coining that term! 😄]
So, next one to get Shaw’s attention, get verification on this part of the rule.

[bossman72]

can they though?

As I read this, I think it's pretty clear they are cemented into position when the snapper takes his position, and the intent of the rule IMO is to to restrict movement in general along with relocation.

(c) Once a player is established as a numbering exception, they may not shift or move to another position.

side note - IMO this is confusing language since a shift by definition involves two or more offensive players (2-22-1-a) and this is specifically talking about a single player

I'm interpreting this as if they start up as one of the "interior five" and end up as one of the "interior five", then it's legal. So if the guard and tackle switch after setting, it's legal. If the tackle and end switch, then eventually switch back, I think that too would be legal.

Agree with Elvis that if it's illegal to shift once established as an interior five then it should be a dead ball foul, much like shifting out of a 3 pt stance.

But would they want that? It's conceivable the punt team would want to shift from spread to tight if the defense shows block.

[dammitbobby]

I'm interpreting this as if they start up as one of the "interior five" and end up as one of the "interior five", then it's legal. So if the guard and tackle switch after setting, it's legal. If the tackle and end switch, then eventually switch back, I think that too would be legal.

Agree with Elvis that if it's illegal to shift once established as an interior five then it should be a dead ball foul, much like shifting out of a 3 pt stance.

But would they want that? It's conceivable the punt team would want to shift from spread to tight if the defense shows block.

But isn't that the very definition of a shift, which is explicitly says is not allowed?

And if this was the case, couldn't they still technically shift into a swinging gate formation, as long as the 4 big ole bubbas lumbered back into their original positions before the snap?

[TxJim]

On the scrimmage kick numbering exceptions:

That's interesting that the snapper's hands don't matter now - position is established when he takes his position, i.e., lines up over the ball. There will be coaches who are going to try to take advantage of this change and get cute trying to move players around, and won't realize that 'hands on the ball' isn't a criteria anymore.

We would remind coaches, if we need to, that the snapper 'takes his position' means when he meets first meets all the requirements of 2-27-4 as a lineman. The to-be snapper breaking from the huddle and moving to any position even one near the ball is still part of a Team A shift and that shift doesn't have to end with him in his final position as a legal lineman over the ball as snapper.

I suspect some coaches might, in order to preserve their ability to substitute or move players around, will have their snapper break the huddle and stop short of becoming a legal lineman and the snapper by rule, for example, with one foot forward and one facing a sideline (shoulders not parallel, not a lineman yet) near the ball, or stand in the backfield behind the ball and behind the waistline of the nearest Team A lineman (still not a lineman or in "position" yet) until they get any shifting or substitutions done. So basically until the snapper is a lineman at the scrimmage line facing their opponent’s goal line with the line of their shoulders approximately parallel, they aren't the snapper "in position" yet.

[Etref]

If there is a way around the rules, a Texas high school coach will try to find it!

[TxJim]

If there is a way around the rules, a Texas high school coach will try to find it!

Etref, that was EXACTLY in mind in my post.... the wrinkle will be invented in a Texas HS football game.

[Snapper]

Ok, so this is interesting.  It’s preliminary though, so I don’t have many details.

But one of the things filtering out of the CFO referees mtg this weekend, is that they expect some coaches to react to the new skf numbering rule by having their players change jerseys for sk’s.

And to accommodate that without having to make a lot of announcements for number changes, they’ve developed a form to be used in pregame to record the anticipated changes.

I’m interpreting this as them saying, “Hey, we realize that you’re not trying to fool anyone if you make consistent changes like this on sk’s, so we’ll just deal with this administratively.”

Years and years ago, numbers were changed like this, and the numbering exception rules probably came in to make that unnecessary (I’m guessing there, it’s actually before my time.)

Anyway, that’s all the info that I have on that so far.  But I do find it interesting.  And I think that we will have all of the guidance we need well before the season.

[ElvisLives]

Years and years ago, numbers were changed like this, and the numbering exception rules probably came in to make that unnecessary (I’m guessing there, it’s actually before my time.)

I’m currently in Oregon (so beautiful), so, I can’t check the year things changed, but (in my time) it seems like it was in the mid-80s.
At the time, strictly for scrimmage kick formations, they allowed players to wear slip-on jerseys with numbers 50-79, without having to ‘report’ or anything like that. They could just change numbers and run in to the game. But, they became a nuisance to the players, and, instead of slipping them fully on, they would just pull them over their heads, and let them hang down in their front. The numbers were anywhere from hard, to impossible, to see/read. And, like virtually every other uniform rule, this rule, eventually, was ignored by players/coaches/officials. As hard as is it was for me to believe, it wasn’t so much the inability to see/read the number - it was the ‘cosmetics’ of the issue - it just LOOKED bad - that prompted the NCAA to find some way to solve this problem. So, under John Adams’ leadership, they developed the concept of the numbering exceptions we have now. But, as always, unscrupulous actors (coaches - especially ‘special teams’ coaches) do anything they can think of to circumvent the rule, and conceal their eligible linemen.
I believe this modification to the mandatory numbering rule has the potential to fix the problem, but they simply have to fully vet the change with all other rules, and consider all possible scenarios that could affect the rule. We are glad the help - aren’t we?
 

[ElvisLives]

All speculation, admittedly, but I ‘speculate’ that the definition of the snapper will need to be edited to eliminate the requirement that he touch the ball or place his hands at/below his knees, to become ‘established.’ 7-1-2-b-2 already prohibits the snapper from moving to a different position, so, unless this is modified, he is fixed (once established). The other 4 of the “fixed five” MAY be allowed to change position among themselves, but I would certainly prefer that the language be written to prohibit ALL of the “fixed five” from changing positions, once they are established. That will make our lives much easier.

Just some thoughts as I sit here bored in the Phoenix airport waiting to go home.