Question 65

kdf5 · #1 (**permalink**) Thu Aug 04, 2005, 10:01pm

It's been a long week and I'm probably thinking too much here but Q 65 is tripping me up. It says that if QB A1 takes a position with hands underneath a linemen, other than the snapper, it is illegal POSITION at the snap.

Is illegal position the same as illegal formation? I went with true.

BktBallRef · #2 (**permalink**) Thu Aug 04, 2005, 11:08pm

The NF answer key states that the statement is true.

ljudge · #3 (**permalink**) Fri Aug 05, 2005, 07:26am

I went with false. Obviously I will be wrong if I leave it that way. Where in the rule book do you see the words "Illegal position?"

If anything at the snap you could have a snap infraction because you wouldn't have anyone there to receive the snap. But then, if the ball isn't snapped between the snapper's legs nobody has to be there to receive the snap. If he snaps the ball to a back (ie: a long snap) thru his legs then you have illegal formation b/c he has to be behind center if the ball is snapped thru the snapper's legs.

I'm clearly missing something. What rule shows this is "illegal position?"

Topshelf · #4 (**permalink**) Fri Aug 05, 2005, 08:26am

I would say that he is in an illegal formation, because he is not on the line of scrimmage and not in the backfield. In 2-30-3 there is an exception for a player to be in this position only if he is under the snapper.

I do, however, agree that I have not seen the term "illegal position". I think you would have an illegal formation.

Warrenkicker · #5 (**permalink**) Fri Aug 05, 2005, 08:44am

This question was on last year's test as well. I argued last year that there was no such term as "illegal position" but the answer was true. Should be the same this year.

BktBallRef · #6 (**permalink**) Fri Aug 05, 2005, 10:04am

Quote:

Originally posted by Warrenkicker
This question was on last year's test as well. I argued last year that there was no such term as "illegal position" but the answer was true. Should be the same this year.

And there you have it.

When these questions repeatedly appear on the exam, you just as well accept them for the answer they're looking for.

kdf5 · #7 (**permalink**) Fri Aug 05, 2005, 10:14am

Thank you, gentlemen. I was thinking I was a total goof for even wondering about this question. I wonder how many I'll have to miss to get a 100%.

MJT · #8 (**permalink**) Fri Aug 05, 2005, 01:13pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Warrenkicker
This question was on last year's test as well. I argued last year that there was no such term as "illegal position" but the answer was true. Should be the same this year.

That is why some of these questions are so bad. There is NO such foul as illegal position, but they say it is true. Crazy!!!!!!

SWFLguy · #9 (**permalink**) Fri Aug 05, 2005, 01:42pm

As a retired educator--I say and always have said that
True/False tests are not as reliable for measuring rules
knowledge as a multiple choice objective test.
I could never understand why official's organizations
did not take the time to construct more valid/reliable
tests.
FHSAA has begun including some multiple choice items
in their rules tests. I believe this is a step in the right direction.
If they keep away from answers like "all the above", etc.
they are a better markers of rules knowledge as opposed
to reading skills.
Reaction ?

dumbref · #10 (**permalink**) Fri Aug 05, 2005, 02:37pm

Look at 7-2-3 and the penalty section. Also 2-30-3

MJT · #11 (**permalink**) Fri Aug 05, 2005, 03:00pm

Quote:

Originally posted by dumbref
Look at 7-2-3 and the penalty section. Also 2-30-3

Yes, but if you look at the penalty section for 7-2-3, it is a foul for illegal formation, not illegal position. If you look on page 89, penalty summary - numbers 1-26, which are 5 yard penalties, there are NONE that say illegal position, and that is the problem!

dumbref · #12 (**permalink**) Fri Aug 05, 2005, 03:22pm

Section 2 heading reads "formation/position", but I get your point and am not arguing it. Nobody had pointed him to the actual rule.

Bob Mc · #13 (**permalink**) Sat Aug 06, 2005, 11:23am

Definately proceedure! Why? If I'm the Guard and I feel hands where I ain't sposed to feel hands on the football field, baby I'm jumpin.

chiefgil · #14 (**permalink**) Sat Aug 06, 2005, 01:36pm

If the QB is in the wrong position, two things can happen: either they take a delay of game penalty, or if the ball is snapped you have a backward pass-live ball.

MJT · #15 (**permalink**) Sat Aug 06, 2005, 01:59pm

Quote:

Originally posted by chiefgil
If the QB is in the wrong position, two things can happen: either they take a delay of game penalty, or if the ball is snapped you have a backward pass-live ball.

If they snap the ball, you have a IF foul according to 2-30-3, and yes, a fumble. This is backed up by case book 2-30-3 which is very similar, but involves a RB, not the QB.