Illegal Numbering

[Simbio]

Last Friday, I was LJ. We had a call that I've never had to use in my 5 years, and I don't think anyone on the crew ever had either. We had illegal numbering, meaning the offense didn't have proper jersey numbering on the front line. For some reason, the umpire and ref thought to mark it off from the end of the run, which didn't seem right to me and I stated that, but was overruled. At half, everyone concluded that it should've been marked off from the previous spot. I haven't checked the rule books on this yet, so I thought I'd throw it out here for discussion.Is it a live, or dead ball foul, is it only 5, and isn't it supposed to be marked off from the previous spot.

[Theisey]

Live ball foul. Rule 7 covers this and it's only 5 yards.
Enforce just like any other all-but-1 foul, the basic spot is the previous spot.

[Simbio]

Thanks Theisey. That's what I thought too. It just makes sense....

[Ed Hickland]

Originally posted by Theisey
Live ball foul. Rule 7 covers this and it's only 5 yards.
Enforce just like any other all-but-1 foul, the basic spot is the previous spot.

Good call. This foul occurs with the snap (7-2-5) (live ball foul) as players may shift until the ball is snapped.

Why did the ref and ump think it was tacked on?

[JugglingReferee]

Originally posted by Simbio
Last Friday, I was LJ. We had a call that I've never had to use in my 5 years, and I don't think anyone on the crew ever had either. We had illegal numbering, meaning the offense didn't have proper jersey numbering on the front line. For some reason, the umpire and ref thought to mark it off from the end of the run, which didn't seem right to me and I stated that, but was overruled. At half, everyone concluded that it should've been marked off from the previous spot. I haven't checked the rule books on this yet, so I thought I'd throw it out here for discussion.Is it a live, or dead ball foul, is it only 5, and isn't it supposed to be marked off from the previous spot.

This is a non-whistle illegal procedure foul, 5 yards from PLS.

It can happen as follows: an interior lineman is numbered from 1-39 or 70-99, and did not report in as ineligible.

[Simbio]

It was an offensive guard numbered "90."

[Bob M.]

Originally posted by Simbio
It was an offensive guard numbered "90."

REPLY: Since a guard numbered "90" is not in itself a foul, exactly what was it you were flagging? Perhaps less than five numbered 50-79, excluding the numbering exception for this discussion.

[Simbio]

Hi Bob M.,

Since I was LJ, I didn't see the numbering on the players. I just remember that 90 was at guard and it was he that had to come off the field. I believe the problem was that they didn't have at least 5 numbered between 50-79, they shouldn't have called it otherwise.

The school got a new head coach this year, and being the first game of the year, they were a bit sloppy and probably either forgot or didn't know about the numbering rule. They did end up winning the game (they hadn't won a game in two seasons, I believe.)

[SouthGARef]

Originally posted by JugglingReferee

This is a non-whistle illegal procedure foul, 5 yards from PLS.

It can happen as follows: an interior lineman is numbered from 1-39 or 70-99, and did not report in as ineligible.

That's news to me. In Georgia, I've never heard of any linemen reporting as eligible or ineligible. The only thing we care about is your number and position.

[Warrenkicker]

For you new guys, there are some Canadian-rules officials posting on this site and their rules are different than NF or NCAA. You'll figure out who they are very quickly and JugglingReferee is the main one.

True there is no reporting in NF rules.