Illegal Formation on Broncos Game-winning Play

[VA-HL]

It is being suggested that the Broncos were in an illegal formation on their game-winning play against the Steelers.  I'm looking for some dialog on how you'd apply our enforcement of the rule in this situation.  Would you have thrown the flag on this play?

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/tim-tebow-game-winning-touchdown-illegal-163812959.html

[Atlanta Blue]

Not even close to a foul!

[TXMike]

How can you say it is not close to a foul?  Not only is it close, but it IS a foul. There is no way that guy's head is breaking the line drawn through snapper's waist.  I can't speak to NFL rules but it is a foul under NCAA rules and this is precisely the type of "V'ing" formation that seems to make the NCAA trining films almost every time one comes out.

[Atlanta Blue]

I can say it's not even close to a foul because I talk with NFL officials and supervisors on a weekly basis.  One of the major points of our discussions is the difference between the techincal and the practical.  It is why the NFL allows wide receivers and split out backs to be on VIRTUALLY the same line, with the philosophy of a "single blade of grass" separating them.  It's why players are routinely "offsides" on kickoffs and there is no flag.  It's why putting 8 on the line and covering up an elegible number IS a foul, because the defense shouldn't have to guess who is a receiver and who isn't.

If everyone and their brother thinks he's a TE, then he's a TE.

If a bunch of internet officials and fans want to use still pictures and parse the letter of each rule and says it a foul, have at it.  But I can tell you from meeting with these guys weekly, this isn't even close to something that's going to get called in the NFL.

NFL officials strongly believe you don't go looking for zebras in a herd of horses.  If Denver thinks he's a TE, and Pittsburgh thinks he's a TE, then he's a TE, not a wump or any other trm you want to use for him.  And if for some reason the L thinks it is a problem, then you tell him to move up next time, you don't drop a flag on it.

[BenG]

By rule it is technically a foul.

But by (my associations) Philosophy, it's not a foul that should be called.

Maybe quick word to a coach/player (e.g. "Coach just make sure you line is straight etc..." if it's a consistent  issue throughout the game. But that would only be if it was a the TE was regularly lining up a significant distance from the line of scrimmage

[BenG]

And - NO I wouldn't have thrown a flag on this play.

[TXMike]

I can say it's not even close to a foul because I talk with NFL officials and supervisors on a weekly basis.  One of the major points of our discussions is the difference between the techincal and the practical.  It is why the NFL allows wide receivers and split out backs to be on VIRTUALLY the same line, with the philosophy of a "single blade of grass" separating them.  It's why players are routinely "offsides" on kickoffs and there is no flag.  It's why putting 8 on the line and covering up an elegible number IS a foul, because the defense shouldn't have to guess who is a receiver and who isn't.

If everyone and their brother thinks he's a TE, then he's a TE.

If a bunch of internet officials and fans want to use still pictures and parse the letter of each rule and says it a foul, have at it.  But I can tell you from meeting with these guys weekly, this isn't even close to something that's going to get called in the NFL.

NFL officials strongly believe you don't go looking for zebras in a herd of horses.  If Denver thinks he's a TE, and Pittsburgh thinks he's a TE, then he's a TE, not a wump or any other trm you want to use for him.  And if for some reason the L thinks it is a problem, then you tell him to move up next time, you don't drop a flag on it.

A better statement from you then would have been "It is not even close to being a foul THAT WILL BE CALLED IN THE NFL".    The issue is more complicated than do we think he is a TE or not.  It involves blocking angles and the ability to release to block elsewhere, especially when it is the tackle who is back too far.  If the NFL has chosen to let the offense have that unfair advantage, that is certainly their  right.  Like I said, the NCAA does want the the formations to be legal.

[Sonofanump]

"single blade of grass"

Huge catchphrase that has trickled down from the NFL to our NCAA assocation/rules meetings.  Put them where they need to be and officiate the game.

I would never call this type of foul in overtime if nothing had been done prior to this play. 

[mccormicw]

In my former association, I only called a player off the line if his head was completely off the line of scrimmage.  I never called this on a team that was getting blown out and I always talked to a team before I threw a flag.  The entire association did not call as many formation penalties in total as I called as an individual one year.  It was cause for much roasting of me from then on.  It appeared to me that I was the only one that felt that it should be called.  If you are the only one calling it, doesnt there become a point where you should adjust what you consider worthy of a flag?

[Rulesman]

I can say it's not even close to a foul because I talk with NFL officials and supervisors on a weekly basis.  One of the major points of our discussions is the difference between the techincal and the practical.  It is why the NFL allows wide receivers and split out backs to be on VIRTUALLY the same line, with the philosophy of a "single blade of grass" separating them.  It's why players are routinely "offsides" on kickoffs and there is no flag.  It's why putting 8 on the line and covering up an elegible number IS a foul, because the defense shouldn't have to guess who is a receiver and who isn't.

If everyone and their brother thinks he's a TE, then he's a TE.

If a bunch of internet officials and fans want to use still pictures and parse the letter of each rule and says it a foul, have at it.  But I can tell you from meeting with these guys weekly, this isn't even close to something that's going to get called in the NFL.

NFL officials strongly believe you don't go looking for zebras in a herd of horses.  If Denver thinks he's a TE, and Pittsburgh thinks he's a TE, then he's a TE, not a wump or any other trm you want to use for him.  And if for some reason the L thinks it is a problem, then you tell him to move up next time, you don't drop a flag on it.

Who cares if the NFL doesn't consider this to be a foul? Wasn't the original question how this would be applied in OUR (i.e. NCAA) situation? Or are you just looking to arguw with Mike today?

[Atlanta Blue]

Who cares if the NFL doesn't consider this to be a foul? Wasn't the original question how this would be applied in OUR (i.e. NCAA) situation? Or are you just looking to arguw with Mike today?

Well, it was an NFL play, an NFL blog, and about the NFL.  So I answered as the NFL sees it.

As for arguing with Mike, I posted BEFORE he did, so it looks like he wants to argue with me.

But that's not news.

[NVFOA_Ump]

I would never call this type of foul in overtime if nothing had been done prior to this play.

IMO this answer applies 100% of the time in any league under any rules.  As a standalone play, per NCAA rules this gets a flag, but not in extra periods if we've been ignoring it all game long.  We see this alignment a lot in the NFL, and I can't ever remember it being called a foul.

[mccormicw]

Someone(s) needs a hug.  All i could find was a  .

[Joe Stack]

this is precisely the type of "V'ing" formation that seems to make the NCAA trining films almost every time one comes out.

Isn't that related to tackle position rather than tight ends? The TE stays in to block but he doesn't use a backed out position as an advantage. Not to mention the fact that the QB is in the shotgun. I don't think there was an advantage gained here. I doubt I would have called this.

[TXMike]

I read a response from an offensive coach on another forum that said they teach that as it helps them get the TE (if he is staying to block) back in a better position to pass block.  I suspecty if you had a not so good TE playing against a quick arse DE/LB, he might want to be back a bit since he knows he will get beat off the line.

[centexsports]

I would not classify this as a normal "wing" allignment that is standard in many levels of football to get a blocking advantage.   (I usually warn the team that they are lining up in a "wing" and it gets fixed.)   In the picture from the NFL game, nobody on the left side of the formation is in a "legal" position based on NCAA rules (OK, maybe the guard but just barely if he is).   

I agree that if it wasn't called all game, you don't call it in overtime but it should have been called (IMO) whenever it happens.   

[bossman72]

We "make him legal" whenever possible.  Even though he's in "no man's land" we will make this guy legal.

This would be a talk to in one of my games and DEFINITELY NOT a foul if it's the first time it happens.

[centexsports]

For those that would not call this, I have a question.

How much more do you allw before it becomes a foul?   At some point, it has to be called (I think).   Could the entire left side of the line line up another 2' back and still be OK? I am just wondering if there is a limit or if this is just not a rule that is called at all in upper levels of football.

[Atlanta Blue]

For those that thought it was a foul, I hoped you watched the NYG-GB game yesterday.  The alignment was standard for the Giants, and not one flag.

In the NFL, this is not a foul.

[Rulesman]

For those that thought it was a foul, I hoped you watched the NYG-GB game yesterday.  The alignment was standard for the Giants, and not one flag.

In the NFL, this is not a foul.

I think we all understand that, Blue, but I would venture to say 99.99% of those who have posted on the topic are not working at that level. That said, I'd like to see the discussion get back to how we would handle this at the NCAA (or for that matter, the Fed) level, which is where the discussion first started, since the interpretations there are obviously different.

Then again, for those watching the NYG-GB game yesterday, there were several calls that raised an eyebrow or two. IMO, not one of the better-officiated games this playoff season

[LJ Silver]

The instruction we have been given is that if there is daylight between the helmet of the lineman in question and the rear end of the snapper, ILF is warranted without any warning.

Any other alignment where the lineman's head reaches the rear end of the snapper but doesn't break his waist should result in a warning, with ILF appropriate if warning(s) fail to correct the problem. 

All that being said, if I hadn't called this all day, I'm sure not starting in the 4th quarter or in OT.

Wideouts are an entirely different matter.  Make them legal if at all possible.

[Chester]

If the alignment by the Tackles is close then you warn them and tell them to move up.  If the Tackle is obviously not on the LOS then you flag it.  By obvious, I mean obvious.  I don't mean close but I mean obvious where everyone can see it.   This should be the case for all levels.  Including NFL.