Author Topic: Another “what if”  (Read 1087 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 4534
  • FAN REACTION: +187/-187
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Another “what if”
« on: May 24, 2026, 01:51:28 PM »
4/G, B-5, 5:00 (4), A=17, B=17. Team A assumes a formation with linemen from left to right: 81, 71, 61, snapper 90, 62, 72, 82. 71, 61, 90, 62, and 72 are within the tackle box. 81 is split wide left, and 82 is split wide right. In the back field is left wingback 31, right wingback 42, potential holder 12 (directly behind the snapper, in a holding posture at the A-12), and potential place kicker 23 (in position to make a place kick at the A-14). Looks like this:
                         ^
  81         71 61 90 62 72         82
            31                    42


                          12

                   23

All Team A players have stopped completely for several seconds, when 23 steps back to the A-15, directly behind the snapper, and 12 stands up at the A-12, and moves directly behind 62. Looks like this:
                         ^
  81         71 61 90 62 72         82
            31                    42


                            12

                       
                        23

After all Team A players have, again, stopped completely for more than one full second, the ball is snapped directly to 12, who then throws a legal forward pass to 81 in B’s end zone.
Team B’s head coach complains that the formation was illegal because there was no player in position, and potential ‘holding’ posture, to receive the snap.

Ruling:
« Last Edit: May 24, 2026, 08:40:48 PM by ElvisLives »

Offline Kalle

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3442
  • FAN REACTION: +114/-35
Re: Another “what if”
« Reply #1 on: May 26, 2026, 02:39:02 AM »
The current final approved rule language starts with: "In a scrimmage kick formation at the snap (Rule 2-16-10)"

Rule 2-16-10 still (?) says that a formation where there is a potential kicker 10 or more yards behind the NZ qualifies as a SKF if it is obvious that a kick will be attempted.

As currently there are about zero kickers who do drop kick field goal attempts, IMO the final formation is not a SKF (team A obviously will not want to punt in this field position), thus I would agree with the team B coach and would flag this.

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 4534
  • FAN REACTION: +187/-187
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Another “what if”
« Reply #2 on: May 26, 2026, 10:12:45 AM »
Exactly where I was headed with this, Kalle. Clearly not going to be a punt. Debatable if there may be a drop kick attempt. But, “debatable” isn’t obvious. I’d go with illegal formation (not having 5 linemen actually numbered 50-79), and let somebody else above me tell me I was wrong.

Offline dammitbobby

  • *
  • Posts: 1745
  • FAN REACTION: +38/-12
  • Exceed the standard... or don't do the job
Re: Another “what if”
« Reply #3 on: May 30, 2026, 05:16:31 PM »
Exactly where I was headed with this, Kalle. Clearly not going to be a punt. Debatable if there may be a drop kick attempt. But, “debatable” isn’t obvious. I’d go with illegal formation (not having 5 linemen actually numbered 50-79), and let somebody else above me tell me I was wrong.


I'm quite hesitant to disagree with you Elvis, but I think I do on this... maybe  I'm just too new/not been around long enough and/or flat out wrong, but here's my take.

As Kalle noted, Rule 2-16-10 still (?) says that a formation where there is a potential kicker 10 or more yards behind the NZ qualifies as a SKF if it is obvious that a kick will be attempted.

I think we agree on the first part of that: in this scenario, that strictly from an alignment and numbering perspective, there is nothing about those elements as presented in either instance that would preclude this from being a legal SKF.

but then:

...if it is obvious that a kick will be attempted.

If the first formation qualifies as a SKF, then what we have is a legal shift within a recognized scrimmage kick formation. The numbering exception doesn't go away because the kicker repositioned from try depth to punt depth. Where/when does a legal shift within a SKF dissolve the protection?

Offline Kalle

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3442
  • FAN REACTION: +114/-35
Re: Another “what if”
« Reply #4 on: May 31, 2026, 01:32:02 PM »
If the first formation qualifies as a SKF, then what we have is a legal shift within a recognized scrimmage kick formation. The numbering exception doesn't go away because the kicker repositioned from try depth to punt depth. Where/when does a legal shift within a SKF dissolve the protection?

For numbering exception purposes what matters is what the formation is at the snap. So, if they snap from B-5 in an apparent "punt" formation, I claim that - unless they have been doing drop kick FG attempts before - it is not obvious that they will kick from that formation. So, they lose numbering exception status (and the snapper loses extra protection) the moment they shift away from the typical FG formation, ie. in this case when A12 stands up.


Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 4534
  • FAN REACTION: +187/-187
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Another “what if”
« Reply #5 on: May 31, 2026, 01:56:14 PM »
For numbering exception purposes what matters is what the formation is at the snap. So, if they snap from B-5 in an apparent "punt" formation, I claim that - unless they have been doing drop kick FG attempts before - it is not obvious that they will kick from that formation. So, they lose numbering exception status (and the snapper loses extra protection) the moment they shift away from the typical FG formation, ie. in this case when A12 stands up.

We are in agreement. Live-ball foul for illegal formation at the snap.