Football Officiating > General Discussion

State Association Interpretation Question: Rule

(1/2) > >>

r14veer:
My state association sends out a weekly officiating video that clarifies rulings, etc.  The video this week was, I believe, incorrect on a rules question about legal formations.  They cited 2-32-9 (lineman definition - ), 2-32-3 (back definition), and the formation requirements of 7-2-5.  On most clips in the video, there are 5 ineligibly numbered linemen correctly on the line of scrimmage, but in several of those clips, there are ends and/or receivers who are not clearly on the line of scrimmage nor are they in the backfield because they are breaking the plane of the nearest player to them who is on the line.  The head of officiating in the video says that those formation were legal because there were at least 5 ineligibles on the line, and 4 backs clearly in the backfield.  That is where my problem with the ruling is.  The other players were neither backs nor linemen because they were not breaking the waist of the center and they were breaking the waist of their nearest teammate who was on the line.  This pretty clearly contradicts 7-2-3, so I wonder if a clarification would be in order.  Thanks for any information!

riffraft:
I would guess your association was saying it was legal by "philosophy"  Many times a WR is in "no man's land" neither on the line nor off the line, but not gaining an advantage.  The general way I handle it when I use to work on the wing is to let the WR know after the play that he was not lined up legal and to make sure he was either off the line or on the line in the future.

If you look at the NFL, it really doesn't matter whether you are actually on or off the line as a WR as long as you indicate to the wing that you are off or on.

r14veer:
I actually just got word that they would be issuing a correction/clarification video.  I really dislike the "by philosophy" argument when a specific rule makes it clear, but I have no problem with it where the rules are unclear.  I don't think there is usually an advantage for a receiver lined up wide to being in "no-man's-land," but I feel like there certainly can be when someone is lined up as a tight end in "no-man's-land" or when an offense is messing with on-off alignments to confuse the defense as to who is eligible/ineligible. 

riffraft:

--- Quote from: r14veer on October 16, 2025, 11:18:24 AM ---I actually just got word that they would be issuing a correction/clarification video.  I really dislike the "by philosophy" argument when a specific rule makes it clear, but I have no problem with it where the rules are unclear.  I don't think there is usually an advantage for a receiver lined up wide to being in "no-man's-land," but I feel like there certainly can be when someone is lined up as a tight end in "no-man's-land" or when an offense is messing with on-off alignments to confuse the defense as to who is eligible/ineligible.

--- End quote ---

The rules are clear what is holding, but "by philosophy" we don't call it when it is on the opposite side of the field from the play.  "By philosophy" is another way of saying in many cases "advantage/disadvantage"

r14veer:
Yeah, I get that.  And we all know holding could be called on every play.  But what if we did call it every time it happened?  Wouldn't that either eliminate holding or make the game so ridiculous/boring that we would have to change the rule to something more realistic and enforceable? 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page