Crackback Block Question

[NVFOA_Ump]

We have the following shoulder to shoulder (no gap) alignment at the snap for Team A:

  ETGCGTE
 W    Q    W
            B

 - There are no linemen more than 7 yards left or right from the position of the ball, and
 - There are no backs more that 5 yards left or right from the position of the ball, and
 - There are no players in motion at the snap.

Is there any possibility of having a Team A illegal low block back toward the ball (a crackback) at any time during the live ball action if the snap actually goes with the 11  A players in this formation?

[JasonTX]

The restriction for backs also includes being completely outside the frame of the body of the second lineman from the middle lineman of the formation.  In your diagram, the two W's would be restricted from a "crackback".

[NVFOA_Ump]

Agreed that was(?) in the previous wording but is it still in the book, and if so where?  The only restrictions that we could find during a rule review last night (when we were discussing a weekend NCAA game where the wing in this alignment cracked back several times with no flag) seem to say that this alignment at the snap cannot later have a crackback called.

9.1.2.e Blocking below the waist is permitted except as follows (A.R. 9-1-2-IIIIX):

1. Offensive linemen at the snap positioned more than seven yards from the snapper are prohibited from blocking below the waist toward the original position of the ball in or behind the neutral zone and within 10 yards beyond the neutral zone.

2. Backs at the snap positioned with the frame of their body completely outside the tackle box, or in motion at the snap, are prohibited from blocking below the waist toward the original position of the ball in or behind the neutral zone and within 10 yards beyond the neutral zone. The frame of the body does not include arms or legs extended sideways (A.R. 9-1-2-XXI).

[Welpe]

Jason is referencing the memo that NCAA released last September.

http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=6868.0

[NVFOA_Ump]

Understand that there was the 2009 in-season clarification memo that "modified" the 2009-2010 text in the book but in this year's pre-season summary of the "official" rules changes for 2010 there was no mention of that wording change.  Hasn't the past practice always been that the in-season "memo" changes are listed in the next season's rules change announcement as official changes for the upcoming season?  Also, the referenced 2009 memo is no longer on the NCAA.org football rules page.  We have the 2009-2010 Rule Book posted with the "old wording", and the rules change memo for 2010 posted.

So the next question is was this oversight intentional, or simply an oversight and the wording change in 9.1.2.e was intended to be in the pre-season 2010 rule changes memo?

[TXMike]

As you know, there was not a new rulebook published this year.  The "change" brought on by the memo did not need to be listed again in the list of changes done before this season as we had already been made aware of it.  The memo is still on the CFO Arbiter site and should be how we rule until we get a new clarification memo or rule book that changes what we were told last season.   

[NVFOA_Ump]

So is it correct to say that the 2 attachments here reflect what the current rules are intended to be?

[attachment deleted by admin]