IN the NFHS there can be one back in position to receive a direct snap (only back to break plane of center). Question is this. the QB lines up with his hands under the Tackle (Guard), and there is a snap to the RB 5 yards behind the LOS. is this a legal formation?

No this is not a legal formation. The rule says that only one player may be in a position not on the line-of-scrimmage and breaking the waist of the player nearest to him who is on the line-of-scrimmage. This player must be in a position to take the snap. Otherwise illegal formation, live-ball foul, 5 yards from previous spot.

Is a player, lined up behind the tackle, breaking that plane? Unless the tackle is in the NZ, I don't think so. A player directly behind a tackle is simply a back. It's that slot behind the center - halfway in the backfield and halfway on the line, that can only be occupied by a player who receives the snap.

Incorrect
 

You are incorrect.
See 7-2-3 and 2-30-3

The formation rule mentions a back breaking the plane of the waist of the "nearest lineman" not the center...

REPLY: That's precisely what puts him in an illegal position. In order to be a back he must <b>not</b> break the waistine of the closest player who is legally on the line.

What are you talking about?

A player lined up behing the tackle is not breaking the plane of anyone on the line. I'm obviously missing something in your description.

(PS - please don't just quote FED rule numbers - the rule itself would be helpful, as I have no FED book, and it's not on line).

The original question states that the QB has his hands under the tackle. In this position I would say that he is breaking the plane of the tackles waist and thus an illegal formation. I agree that if he is just lined up behind him that it is not an illegal formation.

A side not to this: If the back is intentionally lining up behind the tackle to deceive the defense, you could have an UC penalty. Agree?

Why? If the quarterback fakes a handoff to the runningback, to deceive the defense, is that UC?

Or - if the offense shifts legally to disguise a potentially legal receiver in order to deceive the defense, is that UC?

Or does FED have some rule about using formation to deceive the defense (and if so, how is it worded and how would the 2nd paragraph above be any different from your QB behind the tackle)?

Now... back to the initial question.

The place that a player cannot be is the "slot" that breaks the plane of the ADJACENT player (meaning the tackle, in the case of the QB - NOT meaning the CENTER as stated above). This player is not a back (behind the plane of the tackle/guard/end's hips) and is not a lineman (in front of this plane). If you're reading this to mean a player cannot have his hands under the hips of the tackle, I believe you're misreading the rule (or, as is always possible here ... perhaps the FED rule is curiously and extensively different than NCAA - I don't believe this to be the case, since our rule also talks about "breaking the plane" of the player nearest him on the line.)

7-2-3.....of the players of A who are not on their line at the snap only one may penetrate the vertical plane through the waistline of his nearest teammate who is on his line. He must have his hands in a position to receive the ball if it is snapped between the snapper's legs but he is not required to receive the snap. Any other player(s) must be in legal position as a back.... If the qb is lined up behind the tackle and his hands penetrate the vertical plane of his (the tackles) hips, and there is a snap from center, this is and illegal formation...

REPLY: Not at all! All you have is an illegal formation if the ball is snapped while he still is in that position.

The Fed rule defines a lineman in almost an identical way to the NCAA. A back is defined as a Team A player not on the line who "...has no part of his body breaking the plane of an imaginary line drawn parallel to the line of scrimmage through the waist of the NEAREST teammate who is legally on the line." Since he has his hands under the tackles butt, I think that qualifies the tackle as his "nearest teammate legally on the line."

REPLY: I've been participating on these boards for a few years now and I'm frankly amazed at the number of things that some officials want to rule unsportsmanlike 'deception.' I truly mean no offense to Huskerblue, but as mcrowder pointed out, football is a game of deception--and not only by the offense. Even the defense can fake a blitz just prior to the snap to throw off the offense's blocking assignments. And how often do you see the defensive secondary line up in man coverage and drop into a zone just before or at the snap? The only three categories of deception that the Fed has explicitly ruled unfair are: (1) using a player, sub, or replaced player in a substitution or pretended substitution to deceive opponents at or immediately before the snap or free kick (a "hideout" play), (2) lying on the ground to deceive opponents at or immediately before the snap or free kick (see this one quite frequently ?!?!), and (3) using actions and/or language just before the snap to indicate that something is wrong and the snap is not imminent ("Where's the tee?"). And, by the way, the former two infractions are not unsportsmanlike conduct at all, but rather illegal participation. The latter is not specifically spelled out in the Fed rule book, but is rather prominently covered in the Case Book in play 9.9.3 Situation B and is defined as USC. The only two places where the words "deceive" or "deception" appear in the FED Rule Book are in the illegal participation rule (9-6) and when excusing a defensive player's hold on an offensive player pretending to be a runner (2-3). We've got to get over this notion--and spread the word--that any deception that is 'unusual' automatically qualifies it as USC. OK...off my soap box now.

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).

I second Bob's soapbox moment!

I'd like to add that I've often seen officials try to invoke the "unfair acts" rule for things that are specifically covered in the rules. In 6 years, I've NEVER seen anyone from my area invoke the unfair acts rule.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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??

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.

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]

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?

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...

Exactly.

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

REPLY: bushref, let me offer you a suggestion independent of the rule. I would be very cautious about <u>asking</u> 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 <b>them</b> make the decision to move and take the responsibility for it. Does that make sense?