Interesting Academic Question

[ElvisLives]

2/10, A-30 (time, score unimportant).
All Team A players have been stopped for more than one second, with 8 players on the line, and three players in the backfield, when end A88 gently begins moving, stepping with both feet to face his end line, and then continues his movement laterally toward the ball. After a few steps, A88 then veers into the Team A backfield, where he continues to move. Still moving (laterally), A88 is two yards behind the NZ at the snap. A11 receives the "shotgun" snap at the A-25 and immediately pitches the ball to A88 at the A-28. A88 catches the pass and advances to the 50, where he is tackled inbounds, and the ball is declared dead.

OK. We know that A88 was a lineman, and he may not be in motion at the snap. That would be illegal motion, 5-yards from the previous spot, repeat the down.

But, the question is: Is he an eligible receiver?  To be eligible, by definition, a player of Team A must be the end player on the line, or a back. When A88 leaves the line, he is no longer a lineman. But, neither is he a back, if he doesn't stop for one full second. So, by those standards, he is not an eligible receiver. With that logic, when he touches the passed ball, he commits illegal touching.

As I said, this is kind of just an academic question, because the penalty for illegal touching by an originally ineligible player is also 5-yards from the previous spot and repeat the down. But, by extension, this could get more complicated if A88 goes downfield. He could be illegally downfield. If he gets blocked by B while the ball is in the air, there would NOT be pass interference.

Let me have it.
 

[Covid 22]

Blow it dead at the snap.   That ends all potential chaos.   Give the universal signal (false start, kick out of bounds, etc), the announcer will announce Illegal Procedure and go onto the next down. 

One of the only live ball fouls causing the ball to become dead.

Thoughts.

[Legacy Zebra]

Why would you blow it dead when there’s no dead ball foul here? There should be a flag from the wing at the snap for a live ball foul just like any other illegal motion.

To Robert’s question, he is still ineligible as you deduced. If you end up with a possible DPI, hopefully the crew can piece it all together and pick it up. No different than a covered tight end going downfield and the B throwing DPI because he didn’t know he was covered up.

[Kalle]

I don't think this is academic, as A88 can commit OPI if he contacts a team B player when both are making a simultaneous attempt to reach the pass. And yes, he is not a lineman so he isn't an eligible receiver.

We actually had something like this here in Finland this year but the team ran from this, so ended up not causing any extra headache for the crews.

[peterparsons]

In this scenario, A88 meets the 2-27-4-d-1 definition of a back as he's come far enough back off the line of scrimmage to avoid being in "no man's land".

So, does that make him a back who is not allowed to legally be in motion at the snap, but by virtue of 2-27-4-d-1 and wearing an appropriate number, is an eligible receiver?

If he is, by rule, neither a lineman nor a back, then this is an illegal formation under 7-1-4-a-2 (all players must be linemen or backs).

[Legacy Zebra]

Simply being out of no mans land is not enough. A lineman becomes a back when he moves to the position of a back AND stops.

[bossman72]

But, the question is: Is he an eligible receiver?  To be eligible, by definition, a player of Team A must be the end player on the line, or a back. When A88 leaves the line, he is no longer a lineman. But, neither is he a back, if he doesn't stop for one full second. So, by those standards, he is not an eligible receiver. With that logic, when he touches the passed ball, he commits illegal touching.

To be a back, you have to set as a back.  Even though at the snap A88 is completely in the backfield, he's still a lineman and is still the end man on the line of scrimmage (therefore eligible).  The person to his inside would be covered up too until A88 resets again.

[bossman72]

Blow it dead at the snap.   That ends all potential chaos.   Give the universal signal (false start, kick out of bounds, etc), the announcer will announce Illegal Procedure and go onto the next down. 

One of the only live ball fouls causing the ball to become dead.

Thoughts.

Disagree.  Nothing made this a FST.

[peterparsons]

As the book is currently written, A88 does not meet the requirements of being a lineman under 2-27-4-a as he is no longer legally on his scrimmage line. He does, however, meet the requirements of being a back under 2-27-4-d-1, which requires two things, (i) not being a lineman, and (ii) not having head or shoulders breaking the waistline of the nearest Team A lineman.

I know how we interpret it on the field, but conventional interpretation is not entirely consistent with what is actually written in the book, and there are no ARs to cover situations such as this.

If, instead of A88 catching the ball, A88 blocks an opponent at the line of scrimmage and continues that contact up to 3 yards downfield, and a legal forward pass is thrown which crosses the neutral zone and is caught by another, eligible, Team A player, would you want a flag for OPI or not? How would you explain not flagging A88 for blocking downfield to B's coach (who will no doubt want the 15 rather than a 5)?

[Snapper]

Why would you blow it dead when there’s no dead ball foul here? There should be a flag from the wing at the snap for a live ball foul just like any other illegal motion.

To Robert’s question, he is still ineligible as you deduced. If you end up with a possible DPI, hopefully the crew can piece it all together and pick it up. No different than a covered tight end going downfield and the B throwing DPI because he didn’t know he was covered up.

I agree.  Illegal motion and he's ineligible.

[JasonTX]

As the book is currently written, A88 does not meet the requirements of being a lineman under 2-27-4-a as he is no longer legally on his scrimmage line. He does, however, meet the requirements of being a back under 2-27-4-d-1, which requires two things, (i) not being a lineman, and (ii) not having head or shoulders breaking the waistline of the nearest Team A lineman.

I know how we interpret it on the field, but conventional interpretation is not entirely consistent with what is actually written in the book, and there are no ARs to cover situations such as this.

If, instead of A88 catching the ball, A88 blocks an opponent at the line of scrimmage and continues that contact up to 3 yards downfield, and a legal forward pass is thrown which crosses the neutral zone and is caught by another, eligible, Team A player, would you want a flag for OPI or not? How would you explain not flagging A88 for blocking downfield to B's coach (who will no doubt want the 15 rather than a 5)?

If you are a lineman what must one do to become a back by rule?  2-27-4-d-3

[Kalle]

NOW we are going into technicalities

I think by the letter of the rule A88 is still a lineman, as he became one and then hasn't established himself as a back. So, we don't have an extra back, and all players are linemen or backs, so no illegal formation foul. We still have an illegal motion foul, making any ILF moot anyway.

If the above logic is sound, then it becomes interesting re eligibility if A88 doesn't run into the backfield and stays the outermost lineman. I think in that case if he runs a pass route he is an eligible receiver. I don't like this and would hope that Shaw would rule that a lineman in (illegal) motion cannot be an eligible receiver - but he might rule the other way, too, there is nothing inherently obviously unfair in this, IMO, as team A will get a 5-yard penalty anyway - it might make sense not to absolve team B from any DPI.

[peterparsons]

If you are a lineman what must one do to become a back by rule?  2-27-4-d-3

The two parts of the rule contradict each other.

Does A88 meet all the requirements under 2-27-4-d-1?

[JasonTX]

The two parts of the rule contradict each other.

Does A88 meet all the requirements under 2-27-4-d-1?

  If your saying he's a back then that makes his motion legal. He never became a back so that makes his motion illegal.

[peterparsons]

  If your saying he's a back then that makes his motion legal. He never became a back so that makes his motion illegal.

No, I would argue that his motion can not be legal because, as he never came to a complete stop after leaving the line, he has not met all the requirements of 7-1-4-b-2.

[Covid 22]

I have gone back and reread the rules and followed this discussion. If he is a back, I am wrong.  But a R would not have the luxury of this forum and a rule book. The player was still a lineman in motion at the snap.  Kill it and continue.   

What if he was a tight end changing sides of the line and the ball got snapped?

[ElvisLives]

Let’s put some issues to rest:
1. We are talking NCAA rules.

2. A88 is definitely not a back.

3. This is definitely an illegal motion foul by A88.

4. This foul is a LIVE-BALL. (Where anybody gets the idea to stop the action at the snap and penalize this as a dead ball foul is a monstrous mystery to me. This is NCAA football. The rules and the ARs definitely specify this as a live-ball foul.)

Now that those issues are off the table, let’s get back to the uncertain issue:
Is A88 eligible?
Is A88 a lineman? He certainly does not meet the criteria to be a lineman, i.e., facing his opponent’s goal line and head breaking a line through the waistline of the snapper. Maybe he was at one time, but he certainly isn’t at the snap. I point to 7-1-4-b-2. It doesn’t say a ‘lineman’ who goes in motion may not start from the line of scrimmage. It says a ‘player’ that goes in motion...  That clearly and deliberately indicates that such a player is not, or is no longer, a lineman. So, he isn’t a lineman. And he isn’t a back. So, he can’t be eligible. If he isn’t eligible, then:
-He can’t go downfield.
-He can’t touch a legal forward pass until it is touched by Team B.
-There can not be pass interference on him.
-If he blocks or interferes with an opponent downfield between the snap and before a legal forward pass is touched, he commits pass interference (unless he initiated the block within 1 yard of the NZ, and does not continue the contact more that 3 yards beyond the NZ).

Another technical issue: If A88 is not a back, then does he count as a player in the backfield? The relevant rule says there can’t be more than 4 ‘backs,’ not just players. By the purity of the language, he would not count as a back. But, like ILM, IDP and ITP, ILF is also a five-yard penalty at the previous spot. So no practical difference.

I know what I am going to do. And I hope all of you do the same. Live ball illegal motion by A88. A88 is ineligible. If he touches a legal forward pass, or if he goes downfield, then he commits those fouls in addition the ILM foul. If he commits a PI foul, that would take priority over the lesser fouls.

[Etref]

He”t’aint” as we used to say
T’ainta lineman or a back

[JasonTX]

He”t’aint” as we used to say
T’ainta lineman or a back

A mugwump. 

[Kalle]

Is A88 a lineman? He certainly does not meet the criteria to be a lineman, i.e., facing his opponent’s goal line and head breaking a line through the waistline of the snapper. Maybe he was at one time, but he certainly isn’t at the snap. I point to 7-1-4-b-2. It doesn’t say a ‘lineman’ who goes in motion may not start from the line of scrimmage. It says a ‘player’ that goes in motion...  That clearly and deliberately indicates that such a player is not, or is no longer, a lineman. So, he isn’t a lineman. And he isn’t a back. So, he can’t be eligible. If he isn’t eligible, then:

I'm not saying that you are wrong, but I think the rules are not clear on this. I don't see any rule language saying that after a lineman has established himself as a lineman, what happens to his status when he goes in motion and does not stop before the snap. Thus, it can be argued that he remains a lineman, and if he is at the end of the line at the snap, he would be eligible. I hope that I'm wrong as I don't like it (and FWIW, am going to rule that in Finland he is ineligible unless IFAF/NCAA rules otherwise).

[ElvisLives]

I'm not saying that you are wrong, but I think the rules are not clear on this. I don't see any rule language saying that after a lineman has established himself as a lineman, what happens to his status when he goes in motion and does not stop before the snap. Thus, it can be argued that he remains a lineman, and if he is at the end of the line at the snap, he would be eligible. I hope that I'm wrong as I don't like it (and FWIW, am going to rule that in Finland he is ineligible unless IFAF/NCAA rules otherwise).

Kalle, I concur on the language ambiguity. Some parts of the rules imply that a lineman (particularly a ‘restricted lineman’) is established before the snap (i.e., false start), and other parts of the rules actually indicate that a lineman (and a back) is established at the snap (7-1-4 heading says, “Offensive Team Requirements - At the Snap”). That’s where I am hanging my hat. If he doesn’t meet those requirements at the snap, then he is neither a lineman, nor a back, and is, thus, ineligible.
It would be good to get clarity on this, because of the of the possibility of PI on such players. The other issues all have the same result, I.e., 5 yards at the previous spot, repeat the down. But PI on him would result in offsetting fouls. Big difference. I’m going with him being ineligible, until we get a ruling from above that says otherwise.

[Covid 22]

As as referee, you have the ability, BY RULE, to make a ruling based on a situation not specifically being covered by the rules or an AR.   As such, why would you open up Pandora's box and let the play continue.   Everyone agrees that he is NOT a back so he is either a lineman or a undefined player per rule definition.  Since only a back can be in motion at the snap, this IS a false start.   

[Legacy Zebra]

This situation IS covered by the rule. He went in motion from the line of scrimmage without becoming a back by coming to a complete stop. That is illegal motion under Rule 7-1-4-b-2. That is explicitly stated as a live ball foul in the penalty statement for 7-1-4.

At the snap he is not a lineman because he is not on the line of scrimmage, 2-27-4-a. He is also not a back because he did not come to a complete stop when he left the line of scrimmage which is a requirement for a lineman to become a back, 2-27-4-d-3. Since he doesn’t meet the requirements of being a lineman or a back, Team A is in an illegal formation because of 7-1-4-a-2. This also clearly a live ball foul.

Because he is not a back or on the line as established above, he cannot be elegible, 7-3-3-c.

So at this point we have two live ball fouls at the snap, ILM and ILF. After that the player is simply subject to the same rules as any other originally ineligible player. His ability to touch (or bat) a forward pass as well as where and when he can block an opponent are different than if he had simply been a covered lineman or a player wearing an ineligible number.

The rules are pretty clear here. There is nothing that makes it a false start and doing so is making up your own rules.

[ElvisLives]

This situation IS covered by the rule. He went in motion from the line of scrimmage without becoming a back by coming to a complete stop. That is illegal motion under Rule 7-1-4-b-2. That is explicitly stated as a live ball foul in the penalty statement for 7-1-4.

At the snap he is not a lineman because he is not on the line of scrimmage, 2-27-4-a. He is also not a back because he did not come to a complete stop when he left the line of scrimmage which is a requirement for a lineman to become a back, 2-27-4-d-3. Since he doesn’t meet the requirements of being a lineman or a back, Team A is in an illegal formation because of 7-1-4-a-2. This also clearly a live ball foul.

Because he is not a back or on the line as established above, he cannot be elegible, 7-3-3-c.

So at this point we have two live ball fouls at the snap, ILM and ILF. After that the player is simply subject to the same rules as any other originally ineligible player. His ability to touch (or bat) a forward pass as well as where and when he can block an opponent are different than if he had simply been a covered lineman or a player wearing an ineligible number.

The rules are pretty clear here. There is nothing that makes it a false start and doing so is making up your own rules.

Where is he getting this idea?

[Covid 22]

I understand your argument (not fact because the rules do not specifically cover a lineman going in motion behind the LOS and not becoming set again before the snap).   In NCAA games, 8 officials might get this right based on your interpretation.   In a five man or even 7 man crew at a Texas HS game, I doubt it.   Who is going to throw the flag on this?  What about the p[layer originally covered?   If he catches a pass do you think that will be flagged?

Some of the best officials around have been debating this and I think my solution is the best alternative.   However, in a real life situation, the chances of my solution happening are slim.   The wing on the side that the player starts on will hopefully have a flag for not resetting as a back, assuming that he follows him across the field to ensure that he doesn't reset as a WR on the line.   He also needs to check the number of the player that was originally covered up and note that if it is a pass play he doesn't go downfield.   If he does, then he throws his hat and pray there are no other fouls in his area of attention.   If the covered player then catches a pass, he throws his face covering (he wanted to get rid of this the whole game anyway). 

Then the hard part begins when he, the U and other wing come in to tell you what they have.   Good luck with that.