One more plea for help

[ElvisLives]

OK, we very clearly know that Team A MUST (now) have two players in the tackle box on EACH side of the snapper as one of the criteria for a scrimmage kick formation. And the language tells us that those “fixed five” (my term) may not move to another position after taking their positions on the line. The snapper as always been prohibited from moving to another position (in a SKF), but now the “2x2” players are also prohibited. But what is not clear is if the “2x2” may change positions among themselves. Strictly interpreted, no. But, they gain nothing by doing so, since all of them are ineligible by position, so that shouldn’t confuse Team B. So, why limit that ability? Maybe they are really only prohibited from moving to another position outside the tackle box(?). But, it would make our job a bit easier if they are fully prohibited.
Any of you current high rollers that, one way or another, might be in a position to seek clarification from “on high” on this question, your assistance would be greatly appreciated.

[TxJim]

OK, we very clearly know that Team A MUST (now) have two players in the tackle box on EACH side of the snapper as one of the criteria for a scrimmage kick formation. And the language tells us that those “fixed five” (my term) may not move to another position after taking their positions on the line. The snapper as always been prohibited from moving to another position (in a SKF), but now the “2x2” players are also prohibited. But what is not clear is if the “2x2” may change positions among themselves. Strictly interpreted, no. But, they gain nothing by doing so, since all of them are ineligible by position, so that shouldn’t confuse Team B. So, why limit that ability? Maybe they are really only prohibited from moving to another position outside the tackle box(?). But, it would make our job a bit easier if they are fully prohibited.
Any of you current high rollers that, one way or another, might be in a position to seek clarification from “on high” on this question, your assistance would be greatly appreciated.

My initial thoughts after the Shaw video is that illegal formation isn't any longer a "snap shot" at the snap as we have generally said.
So is this correct?
While it's been historically true Team A could correct an illegal formation prior to the snap because the rule still doesn't make this a foul for illegal formation until the snap, the new rule seemingly makes it impossible in many situations for Team A to correct a mistake long prior to the snap. For example, Team A mistakenly shifts from the huddle to a formation 1x3 or being outside the tackle box when standing on the end of the line. The new rule would not allow Team A to legally shift to the other side of the line to correct it to 2x2. Another example it seems it would also be a foul at the snap for Team A to send in a substitute player to correct above to a 2x2 by substituting for the numbering-exception-intended 2x2 lineman who mistakenly lines up as the wide out on 1x3 prior to the snap.
Or am I missing something?

[dammitbobby]

That's exactly what I was asking in the other thread: 'How can they remedy that (moving prior to the snap) when they're not allowed to?'

If it can't be remedied, why is it a live-ball foul? sorry, forgot this had already been answered - because they can call a TO to avoid the foul. Derp on my part.

[ElvisLives]

Although, on 5/14, I had received Shaw's bulletin entitled, "Scrimmage Kick - Numbering Exceptions, Quick Reference for Coaches and Officials," I had not reviewed the Play Interpretations contained in that bulletin before I started this discussion. In looking at those, I see that these 'numbering exception' fouls are to be treated as live-ball Illegal Formation fouls. I had presumed they would be treated the same as a Article 7-1-3 'snapper moving to another position' foul, which is a dead-ball (pre-snap) foul. However, these expanded numbering exception rules are going to be listed in Article 7-1-4, and all of the fouls in that article are covered by one penalty statement, which states these are all live-ball fouls. This makes things a bit tricky, on two accounts: 1) we'll have to remember that the snapper changing positions is a dead-ball foul, and that the "2x2" players changing positions is a live-ball foul, and 2) we may see the "2x2" player(s) change position, and we'll need to hold that foul in reserve, until the ball is snapped. They can certainly avoid the foul by taking a time out, or if there is some other official interruption of the game before the snap. What we DON'T know is if they may 'correct' themselves by returning to their original positions before the snap.

We need an answer to that question.   

[TxJim]

Elvis and I have been talking and kicking some stuff around.
I don't claim to understand everything and always challenge my understanding.
So, at the risk of being a dummy, I post the following for discussion that captures what I was talking about with Elvis.
..
If the 2x2 takes all the guesswork out for Team B and the officials to know who is ineligible, does the prohibition of 7-1-4-a-5 (b) still makes sense without and offer Team A no remidy to correct an errant lineman? It also seems if it remains, then who on Team A may shift AND in what a particular sequence order the shifts occur becomes an issue for officials. And when is a player locked in the 2x2 actually set?

Example
A 4/10 A-35 2Q 6:57. Team A breaks the huddle and moves toward the LOS with players moving at different speeds to an apparent SKF as depicted below.
1                       3  4 5 6 7  8
                          9     10 11

                             12

The first to arrive at the LOS is A4 (snapper), quickly followed by A3, A5, and A7 arrive (as depicted) with A7 touching the rightmost edge of the tackle box at the line, then followed late by a confused A6 who goes to the wrong side of the formation and inserts himself standing on the line between A5 and A7 and then A7 takes a step right to accommodate A6 moving A7 completely outside the tackle box. A6 then realizes he is on the wrong side of the formation and was to be to the left of A3. a) A9 recognizes the situation and steps forward to the line to the left of A3 in the tackle box. Either A1 or A8 recognize A9 vacating his position leaves the punter open to attack from the left by Team B. A1 takes a step back off then line and then shifts to fill the position formerly held by A9. The ball is then snapped and A12 punts the ball. b) A1 or A8 shift off the line, then A9 moves to the position to the left of A3.

Unless I am missing something, If A1 Shifts off the line FIRST and then A9 moves to the left of A3 this would be legal to meet the 2x2 and 7-1-4-a-5 (b). But if A9 shifts to the left of A3 BEFORE A1 shifts to the backfield, this would be a foul for illegal formation 7-1-4-a-5 (b).  Also, Can A8 step off the line and shift to take the former position of A9 even though a 2x2 exists leaving A7 uncovered? I don't think he legally could. There is only one solution A1 has to come off the line first and A9 (or A10 or A11) must shift second, then A1 may shift to the former position.
Also, what about A6 moving inside and forcing A7 out of the tackle box? Was the right side of the box fixed with A7 or not when A6 got there?

[ElvisLives]

After more thought, without taking a team time-out, there is another way for Team A to avoid illegal formation fouls related to SKFs, even if one or more players take incorrect initial positions. As Shaw makes clear in Play Situation 1 of the bulletin, "Scrimmage Kick - Numbering Exceptions, Quick Reference yada yada" (issued a few days ago), the "2x2" players don't become 'exceptions' until the snapper takes his position. So, simple. Just have the snapper take a position, laterally, where he would want to be to address the ball, but stop and hold one yard behind the NZ. Then, let the rest of the team move to their positions. Once Team A is satisfied that everyone else is where they need to be, then the snapper can move forward and take (establish) his position. That's when the "2x2" players get locked in. Following that, I would certainly allow the "2x2" players to adjust their feet slightly. But they can't trade places with another lineman (in the tackle box, or otherwise), or move into the backfield.
It is certainly physically possible for there to be more than two linemen between the snapper and the the edge of the tackle box, especially considering the rules allow a player to be 'touching' the tackle box to be considered 'inside' the box at the snap. (Note that this is true for any scrimmage formation, not just a SKF.) For a SKF, if the "2x2" get established and there is another (maybe more?) player(s) outside of the "2x2" on one (or both) side(s), the widest player (to each side) would be, by rule, the end (as defined) on that side, and, if he is wearing an eligible jersey number, then he would be eligible. (Yeah, this rule reinforces the fact that the minimum number of Team A players required for a scrimmage down is five.)

If this is a SKF, by definition, then the "2x2" guys are ineligible, regardless of jersey numbers. But, all elements of a SKF must be present: one player (potential punter) at least 10-yards behind the NZ, or a potential kicker with a potential holder, both, at least 7-yards behind the NZ and in position to make a place kick, and IT MUST BE OBVIOUS THAT A KICK WILL BE ATTEMPTED. Those last 9 words are critical, and mean not only down and distance, but time and score as well. If the formation meets this criteria, then Team A does not have to have ANY players wearing numbers 50-79, but MUST have two adjacent linemen on EACH side of snapper and within the TB, at the snap. Two is all they need on each side, but they are ineligible, even if the outside guys are, by rule, ends, and wearing eligible numbers.

On the bold assumption that I am reading, and interpreting, things correctly, it would seem that coaches should be 'coached' on this preventive measure for SKFs and numbering exceptions.

[dammitbobby]

Brother I had to read this for five minutes to get who was doing what correct, . Lot of moving parts here.

Just so I am on the same page here, let me paraphrase the conundrum as I see it:

We know we have to have a 2x2 formation. The question is, is the 2x2 requirement snapshotted when the snapper moves into position? Or, when the players are actually in a 2x2 formation?

For the first, if it has to be 2x2 the instant the snapper moves into position, and they aren't in a 2x2, it's an foul at the snap no matter who moves where after that, and the only way to avoid the foul is to call a TO.

For the second, once a 2x2 is established (using whatever requirement that so far is TBD by Shaw, either snapper in position or lined up in a 2x2 formation), can Team A players move or shift, as long as they return to their original spot prior? (My completely uninformed, unintelligent gut says no, that the intent is to cement them in position with no movement whatsoever.)

Is that accurate?

-Elvis, I'm reading through what you wrote now, we were writing about the same time

[dammitbobby]

After more thought, without taking a team time-out, there is another way for Team A to avoid illegal formation fouls related to SKFs, even if one or more players take incorrect initial positions. As Shaw makes clear in Play Situation 1 of the bulletin, "Scrimmage Kick - Numbering Exceptions, Quick Reference yada yada" (issued a few days ago), the "2x2" players don't become 'exceptions' until the snapper takes his position. So, simple. Just have the snapper take a position, laterally, where he would want to be to address the ball, but stop and hold one yard behind the NZ. Then, let the rest of the team move to their positions. Once Team A is satisfied that everyone else is where they need to be, then the snapper can move forward and take (establish) his position. That's when the "2x2" players get locked in. Following that, I would certainly allow the "2x2" players to adjust their feet slightly. But they can't trade places with another lineman (in the tackle box, or otherwise), or move into the backfield.
It is certainly physically possible for there to be more than two linemen between the snapper and the the edge of the tackle box, especially considering the rules allow a player to be 'touching' the tackle box to be considered 'inside' the box at the snap. (Note that this is true for any scrimmage formation, not just a SKF.) For a SKF, if the "2x2" get established and there is another (maybe more?) player(s) outside of the "2x2" on one (or both) side(s), the widest player (to each side) would be, by rule, the end (as defined) on that side, and, if he is wearing an eligible jersey number, then he would be eligible. (Yeah, this rule reinforces the fact that the minimum number of Team A players required for a scrimmage down is five.)

If this is a SKF, by definition, then the "2x2" guys are ineligible, regardless of jersey numbers. But, all elements of a SKF must be present: one player (potential punter) at least 10-yards behind the NZ, or a potential kicker with a potential holder, both, at least 7-yards behind the NZ and in position to make a place kick, and IT MUST BE OBVIOUS THAT A KICK WILL BE ATTEMPTED. Those last 9 words are critical, and mean not only down and distance, but time and score as well. If the formation meets this criteria, then Team A does not have to have ANY players wearing numbers 50-79, but MUST have two adjacent linemen on EACH side of snapper and within the TB, at the snap. Two is all they need on each side, but they are ineligible, even if the outside guys are, by rule, ends, and wearing eligible numbers.

On the bold assumption that I am reading, and interpreting, things correctly, it would seem that coaches should be 'coached' on this preventive measure for SKFs and numbering exceptions.

Another easy way to avoid illegal formation fouls, is to just stop trying to do hinky shenanigans and just line up and kick.

[Morningrise]

In "this is why we can't have nice things" news, it's a little remarkable how for 2026 we now have "standardized jersey change cards" so that the punt unit can report all their jersey changes to the WH because their trick plays forced us to nerf the rule we made 40 years ago specifically so they wouldn't have to do that.

[ElvisLives]

In "this is why we can't have nice things" news, it's a little remarkable how for 2026 we now have "standardized jersey change cards" so that the punt unit can report all their jersey changes to the WH because their trick plays forced us to nerf the rule we made 40 years ago specifically so they wouldn't have to do that.

Full agreement. Amazing how the amount of money involved 40 years ago vs 2026 has impacted college ‘amateur’ sports.