« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Strange Play  (Read 6627 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Gladiator

  • Guest
Strange Play
« on: December 18, 2010, 09:21:43 PM »
Legal formation?
Legal snap?
Eligible Receiver at snapper?

[yt=425,350]vQWz1stsHOo[/yt]
Logged

MJT

  • Guest
Re: Strange Play
« Reply #1 on: December 18, 2010, 10:11:31 PM »
Formation - It looks as if there are not more than 4 in the backfield.
Snap - Is legal.
Eligible receiver - The player ending up catching the ball is the snapper, and he is legal if the player to his right is off the LOS, which it looks as if he is.

So, looks fine to me.
Logged

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: Strange Play
« Reply #2 on: December 18, 2010, 10:58:48 PM »
Formation looks legal, except I'm not sure everyone was set for a full second before the snap.

Snapper's foot looks like it may be past the ball.

Nothing wrong with snapping off to the side (as compared to between the legs) as long as it is still backward, direct and continuous.

But the snapper is covered up.  There is no way the player to his right is in the backfield.  If he is, then 2 or 3 of the linemen are also in the backfield.

Had it been a "standard" play, you MIGHT be able to call #21 off the line.  But if you are trying a "trick play", you had better be 100% clean.  And they aren't.
Logged

Offline RedTD

  • *
  • Posts: 117
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-2
Re: Strange Play
« Reply #3 on: December 18, 2010, 11:09:00 PM »
Agree with AB. If you rule the player the the right of the center as being in the backfield then so are at least three others who are on the same yard line. Additionally one of the interior players goes 4 yards downfield to engage a LB. If it is a trick play there can be no "grey" areas for rules enforcement.
Logged

Offline NCAA-SJ

  • *
  • Posts: 60
  • FAN REACTION: +6/-2
Re: Strange Play
« Reply #4 on: December 18, 2010, 11:10:12 PM »
Don't like it.  For the reasons mentioned above, but also, the 2nd man from the top goes downfield.  I had the snapper eligible with a wingback to his right, making 4 backs; therefore, the guy at the top had to be on LOS to be legal.  When 2nd guy goes, then ID.  Either way you slice it, it just ain't good.

So, my question is, when the R goes to coach for pregame, does coach say, 'We got this play that we run.....'; and if so, what does R say to him to make sure it's legal?
Logged

Offline NTXRef

  • *
  • Posts: 162
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-0
Re: Strange Play
« Reply #5 on: December 18, 2010, 11:40:59 PM »
I think that the only thing I got for sure is the guy going down field 2nd end from the top.  If the center/rcvr would have stayed behind or at the LOS, then everything would have been legal.   I can see daylight (not much) from the "wing".
Logged

Kaare

  • Guest
Re: Strange Play
« Reply #6 on: December 20, 2010, 03:48:39 AM »
What about the snappers stance? He is cearly not parallel to the LOS, and as Atlanta Blue says, his right foot seems to be breaking the LOS. Isn't this an illegal snap?
Logged

Offline Amir

  • *
  • Posts: 49
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-0
  • BAFRA member
    • LinkedIn
Re: Strange Play
« Reply #7 on: December 20, 2010, 04:57:12 AM »
There's nothing wrong with the snapper being in the neutral zone, just as long as he's not beyond it (7-1-3-b-3).
Logged
Now look, you know different people think about life in different ways. Lawyers think life is a big court room, doctors probably think life is like a big operation, and bus drivers think life is... er... a big bus I guess, who knows what the hell those guys think. Anyway, I've always thought of life as a big football game...

110

  • Guest
Re: Strange Play
« Reply #8 on: December 20, 2010, 05:52:18 AM »
Why do coaches pull this crap? Really?
Logged

Offline NCAA-SJ

  • *
  • Posts: 60
  • FAN REACTION: +6/-2
Re: Strange Play
« Reply #9 on: December 20, 2010, 07:55:42 PM »
Cuz they don't know the rules.
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »