Author Topic: #78 on the end of the line  (Read 4692 times)

Offline lawdog

  • *
  • Posts: 145
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-0
#78 on the end of the line
« on: November 04, 2010, 11:57:19 AM »
Otherwise legal formation, five 50-79 and 7 on the line. Is it OK for #78 to not be covered?  Obviously he isn't eligible but I'm thinking he can be there.  AND why am I having a brain freeze on this???
« Last Edit: November 04, 2010, 01:39:46 PM by lawdog »

Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 2271
  • FAN REACTION: +70/-25
Re: #78 on the end of the line
« Reply #1 on: November 04, 2010, 12:09:48 PM »
Legal.

7-2-5(a): At the snap, at least seven A players shall be on their line of scrimmage.
7-2-5(b): At the snap, at least five A players on their line of scrimmage must be numbered
50-79.

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: #78 on the end of the line
« Reply #2 on: November 04, 2010, 12:25:40 PM »
Otherwise legal formation, five 50-79 and 7 on the line. Is it OK for #78 to not be covered?  Obviously he isn't eligible but I'm thinking he can be there.  AND hhy am I have a brain freeze on this???

Only place it's not legal is in the NFL.  In the NFL, the player on the end of the line must be an eligible receiver.

That is the reason you will hear the referee announce before some plays that "#78 has reported as an eligible receiver".  The signal is sliding his hands up and down in front of his torso.  99+% of the time this happens in the NFL, the offense has no intention of throwing the ball to #78, nor will he even go out for a pass.  They simply want an extra blocker, but the last man on the line has to be eligible.

In FED (and NCAA), #78 can never be an eligible receiver, but there is also no rule requiring the end to be an eligible number.

Offline Livin' in the pit

  • *
  • Posts: 677
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-0
Re: #78 on the end of the line
« Reply #3 on: November 04, 2010, 12:51:12 PM »
Only place it's not legal is in the NFL.  In the NFL, the player on the end of the line must be an eligible receiver.

All levels of Canadian ball require eligible ends, too, though a player wearing an ineligible number can "report" as eligible - and vice-versa: quite common in special teams play.

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: #78 on the end of the line
« Reply #4 on: November 04, 2010, 01:00:12 PM »
Sorry, I never think about Canadian football, I guess "only" wasn't right.

Of course, with only 3 downs and a 55 yard line, is it really football;)

Offline Welpe

  • *
  • Posts: 1856
  • FAN REACTION: +28/-11
Re: #78 on the end of the line
« Reply #5 on: November 04, 2010, 01:40:00 PM »
Sorry, I never think about Canadian football, I guess "only" wasn't right.

Of course, with only 3 downs and a 55 yard line, is it really football;)

And return kicks..and rogues...I think we know the answer..  ^no


 ;)

Offline Curious

  • *
  • Posts: 1232
  • FAN REACTION: +28/-44
Re: #78 on the end of the line
« Reply #6 on: November 04, 2010, 02:49:03 PM »
Only place it's not legal is in the NFL. 
In FED (and NCAA), #78 can never be an eligible receiver, but there is also no rule requiring the end to be an eligible number.

He can't be an "eligible" receiver for a forward pass.  Remember the BYU or Boise State (can't remember which) play where they threw a backward pass to a tackle down near the goal line.  I still don't know why more teams don't run this play....

If your team is still in the play-offs, AB, put this in the playbook - assuming you have a tackle who can catch!

Offline lawdog

  • *
  • Posts: 145
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-0
Re: #78 on the end of the line
« Reply #7 on: November 04, 2010, 03:19:52 PM »
Ya thanks for re-affirming I wasn't losing it guys.  We didn't flag it and I thought we were right but it just seemed odd and stuck in my head for some reason.  Just needed to get it cleared out before I work tomorrow...

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: #78 on the end of the line
« Reply #8 on: November 04, 2010, 06:48:07 PM »
He can't be an "eligible" receiver for a forward pass.  Remember the BYU or Boise State (can't remember which) play where they threw a backward pass to a tackle down near the goal line.  I still don't know why more teams don't run this play....

If your team is still in the play-offs, AB, put this in the playbook - assuming you have a tackle who can catch!

He is still not an "eligible receiver".  Given that we have a penalty for an "Ineligible Receiver Downfield" for players who are obviously eligible to catch a backward pass, it seems it's a given that #78 can never be an "eligible receiver".


And we already have a backward pass to a tackle play.  We ran it once last year, and the pass wound up not being backward.  We ran it once this year and the pass went over the head of the tackle, and thankfully, out of bounds.


Not one of our better plays.
 

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2236
  • FAN REACTION: +65/-13
Re: #78 on the end of the line
« Reply #9 on: November 04, 2010, 09:22:18 PM »
Getting back to the OP, we have one school where its quite common for the tackle to be on the end of the line when they line up unbalanced heavy to one side.

Offline Curious

  • *
  • Posts: 1232
  • FAN REACTION: +28/-44
Re: #78 on the end of the line
« Reply #10 on: November 04, 2010, 09:51:11 PM »

And we already have a backward pass to a tackle play.  We ran it once last year, and the pass wound up not being backward.  We ran it once this year and the pass went over the head of the tackle, and thankfully, out of bounds.

Not one of our better plays.

I guess the tackle's "hands" are not the problem...

Offline east louis

  • *
  • Posts: 136
  • FAN REACTION: +1/-14
Re: #78 on the end of the line
« Reply #11 on: November 10, 2010, 09:19:36 AM »
78 can only catch a bkwrd pass,unless a frwd pass touched by b--otherwise block somebody