Center keep

pickoff · #1 (**permalink**) Fri Oct 10, 2003, 10:42am

I AM WONDERING IF THERE ANY LEGALK WAY TO RUN A CENTER KEEP OR CENTER HANDOFF?? I USE TO RUN IT SEVERAL YEARS AGO, BUT THAT WAY HAS BEEN RULED INCORRECT. IT APPEARS NO OFFICIAL IN MY LEAGUE KNOWS THE TRUE ANSWER.

HANDING THE BALL RULE STATES THIS:
ART 1 - ANY PLAYER MAY HAND THE BALL BACKWARD AT ANY TIME
ART 2 - NO PLAYER MAY HAND THE BALL FORWARD EXCPT DURING A SCRIMMAGE DOWN BEFORE CHANGE OF POSSESSION, PROVIDED BOTH PLAYERS ARE IN OR BEHIND THE NEUTRAL ZONE AND IT IS TO:
A. A LINEMAN WHO HAS CLEARLY FACED HIS GOAL LINE BY MOVING BOTH FEET IN A HALF-TURN AND IS AT LEAST 1 YARD BEHIND THE LINE WHEN HE RECEIVES THE BALL/
B. TO A BACK OR A TEAMMMATE WHO, AT THE SNAP, WAS ON AN END OF HIS LINE AND WAS NOT THE SNAPPER NOR ADJACENT TO THE SNAPPER.

I HAVE DRAWN UP A PLAY WHERE THE QB OPENS RIGHT AND REVERSES LEFT, THE CENTER OPENS LEFT AND REVERSES RIGHT, THE QB HANDS THE CENTER THE BALL ON HIS INSIDE, AND FOLLOWS IS OPTION FAKES OUT THE THE LEFT. IT LOOKS DARN GOOD AT PRACTICE SURPRISES MY QUICK DEFENSE EVERYTIME, JUST NEED TO KNOW IF ITS VALID TO RUN ON THE HIGH SCHOOLL LEVEL.

Smiley · #2 (**permalink**) Fri Oct 10, 2003, 10:50am

Sounds like the ball is being hand forward to the center. Since the center is a lineman and is the snapper, he must clearly face his goal and be at least a yard behind the neutral zone.

AlabamaBlue · #3 (**permalink**) Fri Oct 10, 2003, 01:09pm

Sounds legal the way you describe it, sounds like the center is turning 3/4 of a turn to his left, which would meet the requirement for having faced his goal line. Just make sure he's behind the neutral zone...

BktBallRef · #4 (**permalink**) Fri Oct 10, 2003, 11:53pm

Hey guys, maybe I'm missing something but doesn't the rule say if the handoff is "to a back or a teammate who, at the snap, was on an end of his line and was not the snapper nor adjacent to the snapper."

How can a forward handoff to the snapper be legal?

BTW pickoff, welcome to the board! We welcome coach's questions. But could you please not use CAPS? It makes it very difficult to read. Thanks!

AlabamaBlue · #5 (**permalink**) Sat Oct 11, 2003, 12:30am

Bkt, that's art2B, look at art2A right above it:

A. A LINEMAN WHO HAS CLEARLY FACED HIS GOAL LINE BY MOVING BOTH FEET IN A HALF-TURN AND IS AT LEAST 1 YARD BEHIND THE LINE WHEN HE RECEIVES THE BALL

BktBallRef · #6 (**permalink**) Sun Oct 12, 2003, 11:52pm

Quote:

Originally posted by AlabamaBlue
Bkt, that's art2B, look at art2A right above it:

A. A LINEMAN WHO HAS CLEARLY FACED HIS GOAL LINE BY MOVING BOTH FEET IN A HALF-TURN AND IS AT LEAST 1 YARD BEHIND THE LINE WHEN HE RECEIVES THE BALL

Was does 2a overrule 2b?

AlabamaBlue · #7 (**permalink**) Mon Oct 13, 2003, 09:43am

They're either/or. If the lineman meets the restrictions in b, he doesn't have to turn and face his goal line.

Smiley · #8 (**permalink**) Mon Oct 13, 2003, 10:40am

Quote:

Originally posted by AlabamaBlue
Sounds legal the way you describe it, sounds like the center is turning 3/4 of a turn to his left, which would meet the requirement for having faced his goal line. Just make sure he's behind the neutral zone...

He must be at least one yard behind the neutral zone.

w_sohl · #9 (**permalink**) Mon Oct 13, 2003, 10:49am

Quote:

Originally posted by AlabamaBlue
They're either/or. If the lineman meets the restrictions in b, he doesn't have to turn and face his goal line.

I don't see anywhere where the rule says "either" or "or". The way I read the rule, because he is the snapper he can never be handed the ball FORWARD.

PiggSkin · #10 (**permalink**) Mon Oct 13, 2003, 01:15pm

Quote:

Originally posted by w_sohl
I don't see anywhere where the rule says "either" or "or". The way I read the rule, because he is the snapper he can never be handed the ball FORWARD. [/B]

Part a applies to interior linemen, part b applies to backs and ends... (With an exception or two for weird formations...) If you enforced A and B, then almost no forward handoffs would be legal...

BktBallRef · #11 (**permalink**) Mon Oct 13, 2003, 10:48pm

At best, the rule seems to be poorly written. Thanks to w_sohl for seeing my point. I think it clearly states that the snapper can't receive a handoff. Admittedly, that may be the wrong interpetation but that is what it says.

mikesears · #12 (**permalink**) Tue Oct 14, 2003, 07:27am

It seems to me that whenever the Fed uses A's and B's, etc. in a rule that those A's and B's mean "or".

Look at 7-1-3 (a-d).

Look at 7-1-7 (a-c).

Look at 7-2-5 (a & b).

If they changed it to an "and" for this one rule, it wouldn't be consistent with the rest of the rulebook.

Just my two cents.

Snake~eyes · #13 (**permalink**) Tue Oct 14, 2003, 09:06am

I don't think your 7-2-5 is a good example of "or". Because that would mean as long as you have 5 players 50-79 on the line then you could have identical jersey numbers.

I interperet the rule as both the requirements must be met.

Because in 7-1-3, a-d is preceded with "shall not:"
Meaning any of those.

But in 7-3-2 it precedes with "it is to:", I interpert that as being all of those requirements.

But I think it could be aruged either way and this could use clarification.

thats my 2 cents.

cmathews · #14 (**permalink**) Tue Oct 14, 2003, 09:17am

I am of the either or opinion here. I think that if either of the requirements are met then the forward handoff is legal...

mikesears · #15 (**permalink**) Tue Oct 14, 2003, 09:21am

Quote:

Originally posted by Snake~eyes
I don't think your 7-2-5 is a good example of "or". Because that would mean as long as you have 5 players 50-79 on the line then you could have identical jersey numbers.

Good point. In programming there is such a thing as an exclusive "OR" and an inclusive "OR". An exclusive "or" simply means one or the other can be true but both of them can't be true. An inclusive "OR" is a statement where one of the statements must be true but it doesn't forbid the second statement from being ture.

Maybe this is a case of an inclusive "or" and they really mean "and" .

In other words, I didn't fully read the rule before I posted my response. Sorry