![]() |
|
|
|||
But only if the "missing players" from the line are those who would've had eligible receiver #s. Otherwise still an illegal formation. Why couldn't they fix that too?
|
|
|||
Quote:
The 4 backs can wear whatever number they want, but choosing numbers between 50-79, will restrict forward pass eligibility. The remaining 2 players can also wear whatever #s they want, risking the same FP eligibility restrictions. What has actually changed, other than who "WE" first count to verify and confirm formations are legal. WE still have to be aware if after we count 4 backs, there aren't MORE than 7 on the line, or if one of the remaining 7 lined up incorrectly as a back. |
|
|||
Quote:
Anyway, in case you don't get what I'm complaining about, this change has fixed the situation where one of the ends is missing, but not the situation where a guard or tackle is missing. In that case, team A is still getting penalized for playing short. It would've been just as easy for the rule to be written to have a maximum # of eligible shirts, rather than a minimum # of ineligible ones, on the line. But noooo.... |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
2019-2020 POE's | bas2456 | Basketball | 32 | Sat Feb 09, 2019 08:12pm |
2019 nfhs | agr8zebra | Softball | 3 | Sun Feb 03, 2019 01:22pm |
2019 USA Umpire Exam | Tru_in_Blu | Softball | 2 | Mon Dec 31, 2018 10:11pm |
USA Softball Rule Changes for 2019 | IRISHMAFIA | Softball | 17 | Wed Dec 12, 2018 04:21pm |
FED Rules Changes for 2019 | CT1 | Baseball | 3 | Mon Jul 09, 2018 11:26am |