illegal formation?

[waltjp]

Maybe next year's rule book will clarify this - but this is what I'm thinking.

The 11th player left because he thought he had been replace. Upon reaching the sideline he learned that he had not been replaced so he returns to the field. I think we all agree that this is legal.

As Thomas said earlier, there are 2 questions here.

First, does he have to come inside the 9-yard marks to make himself legal or did he already do that before leaving his huddle?

Second, if he does have to re-establish himself but does not do so is he an eligible receiver?

In my opinion he does not have to come back inside the 9-yard marks. I think he already met this requirement when he was in the huddle at the RFP. (I don't necessarily like this but I don't see the rule that says it's wrong.) The rule says a player must be momentarily inside the marks after the ready for play. he met that requirement. His going to the sideline and returning does not change his status as a player. We know it's not an illegal substitution. It's not illegal participation.

But to play devil's advocate, if he does have to come back inside the marks and fails to do so I think he's still an eligible receiver as shown in the Redding's example. Their situation covers a player who remained outside the marks and then caught a pass. They don't describe this action as anything more than an illegal formation.

[mcrowder]

Being a non-Fed guy, I've read this with interest, wondering if I'd misunderstood your rules.

What is surprising is that there seems to be some feeling that this SHOULD be illegal, even if it isn't. I don't understand that. The kid did nothing wrong, and did not try to deceive the defense. Why the desire to make that illegal? The whole 9-yard mark idea is to prevent deception. There was no deception at all here. By both the letter and the spirit of the rule, this kid did nothing wrong and is a legal, pass-eligible player.

[wisref2]

I don't understand where this discussion about being ineligible is coming from. The only way you can be ineligible is by position or number - it has nothing to do with the 9-yard marks or anything else.

If he is on the end of the line, he is eligible. Though he could cover someone else making them ineligible. Any other violation that may have occured doesn't impact whether or not he is elibible.

If he is in the backfield, he is eligible. Again, any other violation would not change this.

Originally posted by waltjp
Maybe next year's rule book will clarify this - but this is what I'm thinking.

The 11th player left because he thought he had been replace. Upon reaching the sideline he learned that he had not been replaced so he returns to the field. I think we all agree that this is legal.

As Thomas said earlier, there are 2 questions here.

First, does he have to come inside the 9-yard marks to make himself legal or did he already do that before leaving his huddle?

Second, if he does have to re-establish himself but does not do so is he an eligible receiver?

In my opinion he does not have to come back inside the 9-yard marks. I think he already met this requirement when he was in the huddle at the RFP. (I don't necessarily like this but I don't see the rule that says it's wrong.) The rule says a player must be momentarily inside the marks after the ready for play. he met that requirement. His going to the sideline and returning does not change his status as a player. We know it's not an illegal substitution. It's not illegal participation.

But to play devil's advocate, if he does have to come back inside the marks and fails to do so I think he's still an eligible receiver as shown in the Redding's example. Their situation covers a player who remained outside the marks and then caught a pass. They don't describe this action as anything more than an illegal formation.

Walt,
I understand what you're saying here but if we have an illegal formation where a player does not line up correctly (in the no man zone) isn't he an ineligible player? then I wanted to know why that wouldn't apply to this new Illegal formation...?

[waltjp]

Originally posted by tpaul
Walt,
I understand what you're saying here but if we have an illegal formation where a player does not line up correctly (in the no man zone) isn't he an ineligible player? then I wanted to know why that wouldn't apply to this new Illegal formation...?

And I can understand your question but from the interprations and examples I've seen he does not lose his eligibility because he didn't comply with the 9-yard rule.

Originally posted by waltjp

And I can understand your question but from the interprations and examples I've seen he does not lose his eligibility because he didn't comply with the 9-yard rule.

okay enough on this dead horse! LOL