formation (NFHS)

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by mcrowder
CMat, I don't believe that's the intent of the rule. The intent of the rule is to prohibit players - other than a QB - from lining up in "no-man's land" - i.e. not a back, and not a lineman. The hands under the butt is NOT a violation of this. If you're reading the rule to imply that the player closest to the QB is the player he's got his hands under, I believe you're missing the point.

And in any case, if your hands are under a player's butt, from behind, you're not breaking the plane of his waist (unless he's standing up).

Please explain how the QB is breaking the waistline plane of the snapper when he is under center but he is not breaking the waistline plane of the tackle when he is in the exact same position.

[mcrowder]

That's my point exactly. He's not. He's breaking the plane of the TACKLE's waist - which is the point of the rule. Only one player is allowed to do so, and if he's breaking the plane of the waist of the player nearest (not in front of) him, he must be accepting a snap or he's in "no-man's land", and is illegal.

Quite frankly, I'm stunned this is a 1 vs everyone debate. Everyone I've ever discussed this with knows and understands the intent and application of this rule, and I'm flabbergasted that so many here (almost exclusively people who's opinions on other matters I generally trust) are misinterpreting this.

[Warrenkicker]

I would say that when the QB has his hands under center that the center is the closest player to him. The QB is probably touching the center so the guard or tackle is further away.

I can see your point that a player lined up behind the tackle may not actually break the plane of the tackle even with his hands under the tackle.

[mcrowder]

Ask yourself what the point of the rule is.

It's to keep people out of that area between the LINE (where tackles and guards and ends are) and the BACKFIELD (where backs are). A WR or flanker (or TE) must line up so that he is not breaking the plane of the waist of the farthest player out on the line, on his side - if he's in front of that plane, he's on the line. If he's behind it, he's a back. If he's neither, he's illegal.

Guards must line up similarly - not breaking the plane of the waist of the player he's next to.

The NCAA wording of this rule actually includes the statement "of the nearest team A player (Except the snapper)"... but the intent of these rules is the same.

Now ... we've written this rule to keep people out of that zone, but we have to make an exception for the QB, so that he can receive the snap. Hence the current wording of this rule.

A player, lined up behind tackle, IS a back, regardless of where his hands are. It is absurd to imply that a player's hand position changes him from a back to "not a back", and thus illegal.

[Warrenkicker]

I understand the point of the rule. It is to allow the defense to be clear as to who are the elgible receivers in a formation.

Your definition of being on or off the line is a little lacking though. A player is on his LOS if he is breaking the waist of the snapper not just the player next to him. If he is breaking the waist of the player nearest him then he is not a back. I'll admit the NCAA rule that you quoted is a better written rule.

This is a formation which I haven't seen in my years. My first thought was that is was illegal but then I tried to think of what advantage could be gained from this formation and maybe there isn't any. I'm here to learn so I'll probably let this go if I ever see it.

[cmathews]

mcrowder,
I think you make a reasonable point, but I don't think it is correct. Number one, did you really help write the rules, as you imply in your post? Because if you did then I will gladly go along with your assesment, and that is not meant as a slap, it is an honest question. Number 2 look at the casebook 7.2.3 A: where it clearly mentions a qb breaking the plane of the "centers" waist or the next nearest lineman. I don't know if you played qb or not, I did. When you line up it is not just your hands that break the plane of the waist, your head, and your feet usually do to. This happens because the lineman in order to get his butt down moves his butt back behind his feet..usually his waist is right above the heels or behind..now see 7.2.3 B: where it talks about the legality of positioning and feet or head need to break the plane of the nearest lineman....so therefore since it is pretty clear to me that if you appear to be in a position to take the snap from the Tackle you are breaking the plane of his waist, he is the nearest player on the LOS and the QB is no longer a back, and the exception for him means he has to be in a position to take the snap, and he isn't so it is an illegal formation. To me this is actually more deceptive and unfair than the poor slot receiver who happens to line up 8 inches to far foreward... The defense can be unfairly fooled by a direct snap to a running back here....IMHO

[mcrowder]

If they are not "breaking the plane of the waist of the nearest lineman", the player is a back. I try to put his forward foot slightly behind the last lineman's butt.

[cmathews]

I agree with that, but how can you be in a position to take the snap from the "tackle" without breaking the plane of his waist??

[Jim S]

Originally posted by mcrowder
Ask yourself what the point of the rule is.

A player, lined up behind tackle, IS a back, regardless of where his hands are. It is absurd to imply that a player's hand position changes him from a back to "not a back", and thus illegal.

Then I take it you also think it is "absurd" that we have the exception for the QB going under the snapper. By your logic we don't need such a rule.
It is only when going under any other player is considered a foul that such an exception is needed.

[mcrowder]

Jim S - No, of course not. Did you read my post?

We need the exception for the QB to allow him to be there because his natural position behind the center DOES cause him to break the plane of the nearest lineman (the tackle)'s waist. He's halfway on the line, halfway off... so if you had no exception to the rule allowing him to be there, every non-shotgun snap would be illegal.

CMat - I thought we'd hit that one already. When a tackle lines up in a 3 or 4 point stance, his waist is forward from his butt. A snapper's hands would have to be WAY too far forward for comfort for them to be beyond the tackle's waist. I'll look at the tackles in the next game I do tonight, but I also doubt that a QB's feet or head could break the plane of the waist if he lined up in a natural position to "fake" a snap from a tackle.

[Edited by mcrowder on Oct 7th, 2004 at 03:28 PM]

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by mcrowder
That's my point exactly. He's not. He's breaking the plane of the TACKLE's waist - which is the point of the rule. Only one player is allowed to do so, and if he's breaking the plane of the waist of the player nearest (not in front of) him, he must be accepting a snap or he's in "no-man's land", and is illegal.

Quite frankly, I'm stunned this is a 1 vs everyone debate. Everyone I've ever discussed this with knows and understands the intent and application of this rule, and I'm flabbergasted that so many here (almost exclusively people who's opinions on other matters I generally trust) are misinterpreting this.

When a QB is under center, his head and shoulders are breaking the waist of the other players on the line.

If a QB is under the tackle as if to receive a snap, his head and shoulders are breaking the waist of the other players on the line, with possible exception of the center. He's in no man's land!

I don't understand why you can't see that. And like you said, it's 1 against everyone else. Doesn't that tell you something?

[cmathews]

Originally posted by mcrowder
Jim S - No, of course not. Did you read my post?

We need the exception for the QB to allow him to be there because his natural position behind the center DOES cause him to break the plane of the nearest lineman (the tackle)'s waist. He's halfway on the line, halfway off... so if you had no exception to the rule allowing him to be there, every non-shotgun snap would be illegal.

CMat - I thought we'd hit that one already. When a tackle lines up in a 3 or 4 point stance, his waist is forward from his butt. A snapper's hands would have to be WAY too far forward for comfort for them to be beyond the tackle's waist. I'll look at the tackles in the next game I do tonight, but I also doubt that a QB's feet or head could break the plane of the waist if he lined up in a natural position to "fake" a snap from a tackle.

[Edited by mcrowder on Oct 7th, 2004 at 03:28 PM]

forward from his butt yes....but his waiste is most likely behind his heels...and the qb's hands are ceratainly well ahead of his butt...

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by cmathews

forward from his butt yes....but his waiste is most likely behind his heels...and the qb's hands are certainly well ahead of his butt...

Exactly.

Players don't just bend in half while their legs stay straight like an ostrich.

[Bob M.]

Originally posted by BushRef
Man, as a rookie and working the wing all season, I Think I may have been flubbing up this ON THE LINE/OFF THE LINE all year now. When my receivers come out, if they don't tell me, I ask them ON or OFF so that I can make sure they are lined up accordingly. Basicly, I've been putting their front foot at the "tail" of the ball if they're on, and put em about a step back if they told me they were off...(cont'd)

REPLY: bushref, let me offer you a suggestion independent of the rule. I would be very cautious about asking are you on or off the line and then moving them up or back. I believe, and I'm sure there are a number of our colleagues that will agree, that you're setting yourself up for trouble. Think about it: He tells you, "I'm on." You see he's back too far and say, "Move up." Now what happens when, as he's moving up (forward), the ball is snapped? Or conversely, you tell him to move back and he does so as another back is legally in motion? In each case, he's fouled. And the last thing you want is him saying, "You told me to move up/back." A better technique IMHO is to declare when they get there, "#81 is on the line; #32 is a back." If that's not where they belong, let them make the decision to move and take the responsibility for it. Does that make sense?