Ambiguous question of the day

[El Macman]

2&8 at the B40. Slot receiver A88 is positioned to the right side of the formation. Just before the snap he starts in motion toward the left side of the field. After the ball is snapped he goes down field and, at the B33, blocks Safety B22 below the waist toward the sideline he started his motion from. Running back A15 is tackled at the B30.

Ambiguous information. Even assuming the block was not toward his own goal line, we don’t know where he was at the snap. If we assume he was still to the right of the snapper, then his block was toward his adjacent sideline, thus, legal. A, 1/10, B-30, 40 (running)/RFP.
However, if he was to the left of the snapper, then his block was away from his adjacent sideline and illegal. The foul was behind the end of the related run; so, penalize 15 yards from the spot of the foul. The distance penalty leaves the ball behind the line-to-gain, so repeat the down. A, 2/16, B-48, 25/RFP.

[Andrew McCarthy]

Maybe it's just me but "slot receiver" is an ambiguous position.  This player may be unrestricted.

I was on a spring game this past weekend where a player routinely lined up in the normal tight end position but back off the line.  Many times his inside foot was aligned behind the tackle's outside foot.  Since he was off the line he wasn't the tight end.  If he's considered a "slot receiver" then in the play you describe he would be unrestricted if he was in the unrestricted area at the snap (and after the RFP prior to setting).

[El Macman]

Maybe it's just me but "slot receiver" is an ambiguous position.  This player may be unrestricted.

I was on a spring game this past weekend where a player routinely lined up in the normal tight end position but back off the line.  Many times his inside foot was aligned behind the tackle's outside foot.  Since he was off the line he wasn't the tight end.  If he's considered a "slot receiver" then in the play you describe he would be unrestricted if he was in the unrestricted area at the snap (and after the RFP prior to setting).

10-4 on the ambiguity of "slot receiver." I didn't "go there" in this case, because he went in motion, making that initial positioning moot. It isn't that difficult to write unambiguous questions. Why it doesn't happen, I can't explain.

[Rulesman]

Maybe it's because ambiguous questions can sometimes mirror ambiguous statements (as we all know are NOT contained in the rule book). Cough... cough... laugh... 

[Andrew McCarthy]

I didn't "go there" in this case, because he went in motion, making that initial positioning moot.

Doesn't it matter this season?

[El Macman]

Doesn't it matter this season?

Yeah, actually it does. Good lesson there. Can't have the same mindset as previous years. I had it in mind that he was outside the TB when he started in motion. The question doesn't clearly identify his starting position. So even though the term "slot back" conjures someone outside the TB, it ain't necessarily so. If he happened to be inside the TB, and stays there until the snap, then he has only the restriction of not blocking below the waist toward A's goal line when beyond the NZ. (I know some folks like to use the term "unrestricted," but that term is too broad, because he is only "unrestricted" when blocking behind the NZ; beyond the NZ, he can't BBW toward A's gol line.)