OK, I believe I have answered my two primary questions on my own.
Play 3 from Shaw's "2026 NCAA Football Rules Book Language" bulletin gives me the logic for concluding that a) yes, Team A may have more than 7 linemen, and b) linemen between the ends other than the five lineman in the "2x2" positions, and wearing numbers other than 50-79, are, officially, NOT exceptions to mandatory numbering, and are NOT prohibited from changing positions. Here is Shaw's play situation:
---------
Play 3: On fourth down with potential punter A94 lined up 12 yards behind the snapper, Team A does not have five linemen numbered 50-79 in the game. They line up in a 2 X 3 formation with A33 and A27 to the left of snapper A49, and A8, A31, and A18 to the right. They have a gunner on each side of the field lined up on the line and three backs (including the punter) in place. Prior to the snap, Team A (a) shifts A33 one yard back off the line of scrimmage, or (b) shifts A18 one yard back off the line of scrimmage. A49 snaps the ball and A94 kicks the ball through the end zone for a touchback. RULING: (a) Team A has committed a foul for Illegal Formation since A33 shifted out of the 2 X 2 formation prior to the snap. (b) There is no foul since the 2 X 2 formation remains with A33, A27, A49, A8 and A31 in position and Team A has no more than four backs.
---------
Looks like this (I selected numbers for the 'gunners' and the two backs other than the potential kicker):
^
89 33 27 49 8 31 18 88
35 29
94
After all Team A players have taken their positions above and fully stopped for one full second, A18 moves into the backfield and stops, then the ball is snapped:
^
89 33 27 49 8 31 88
18
35 29
94
(The play situation language used the term 'shifts' when referring to A18's move from the line to the backfield. If another player also moved, then, yes, that would be a 'shift,' as defined, and the entire team would have to fully stop and pause for one full second before the ball could be legally snapped. I have assumed that A18 was the only Team A player moving, and had, at least, fully stopped before the ball was snapped.)
By the ruling provided: "There is no foul since the 2 X 2 formation remains with A33, A27, A49, A8 and A31 in position and Team A has no more than four backs." we can conclude that A18 was not a numbering exception when he was on the line. Therefore, he is not prohibited from moving to a different position. Although not specifically addressed in Shaw's play situations, IMHO, it is reasonable to conclude that, since A18 is not a numbering exception, he could have also moved to the opposite side of the line (but not displacing any of the "2x2" linemen), or moved to an end position, and, thus, become an eligible player. Team A simply must know that only backs, and ends wearing an eligible number is ever eligible at the snap. If A18 moves to an end position (covering A88, for example), then he is eligible, and A88 is not eligible.
So, at this point, I believe I have a full grip on the rule change. Without these Play situations, it would have been very hard to arrive at these conclusions, with the language as it is. But, the language and the play situations (which I certainly hope become ARs), combined, give us the info we need.
Actually, I don't have a full grip.
The issue is who are "numbering exceptions." We keep thinking all 5 linemen in the "2 X 2" are numbering exceptions - regardless of actual number. I don't think that is true. Previously, an 'exception' was a lineman BETWEEN THE ENDS wearing a number other than 50-79. Once they were established (by the snapper addressing the ball), they had to be on the line and between the ends at the snap, and they were ineligible for the entire down. But, they were allowed change position(s) and/or shift all they wanted to, as long as they were still on the line and between the ends at the snap. A player wearing a number 50-79 was never treated as an 'exception,' because they weren't - and they still are NOT.
For 2026, a lineman wearing a number other than 50-79, who is positioned within or touching any part of the playing field within the tackle box for in a scrimmage kick formation is an 'exception to mandatory numbering.'
All well and good.
But, since a player wearing a number 50-79 is NOT an 'exception' to mandatory numbering (they ARE mandatory numbering!), they would not seem to be restricted in their ability to change position(s) and/or participate in a shift, even if they are, initially, in the "2 X 2". The new rule language would not seem to prohibit such players from a) moving into the backfield, b) moving to a line position outside outside the tackle box, including the end of the line.
If they want all 5 players in the "2 X 2", irrespective of numbering, to be "locked in" to their positions after the snapper is established, then they need to say that. Something like:
(a) Team A must have the snapper, and two linemen on each side of the snapper, positioned within, or touching, the tackle box (2 X 2 formation). This 2 X 2 formation becomes established when the snapper assumes his position as a lineman at the ball.
(b) After the 2 X 2 formation is established, the linemen in the 2 X 2 formation, regardless of numbering, may not move to another position anywhere in the team's overall formation.
(c) Linemen who assume positions in the 2 X 2 formation who are wearing numbers other than 50-79 become exceptions to mandatory numbering, and are ineligible by position.
But, I honestly don't think that is the intent. I think the linemen restricted in their positioning in the 2 X 2 formation are the numbering exceptions. Who cares if A66 moves from 'guard' to 'punt protector'? That doesn't fool anybody as to eligibility. I'm OK with 'exceptions' getting locked in, once established. But players with ineligible numbers aren't fooling anybody.
Hopefully, we'll get answers to these questions before late August.
