A11 thinking he has been replaced runs off the field. he realizes he is suppose to be in so he runs on the field about 5 yards, never made it between the numbers, he gets set and the play goes off. he did not deceive anyone. would tis be a live ball illegal formation penalty? please comment on what the correct call and enforcement would be?

I have illegal formation. 5 yards from the previous spot is the enforcement. Not having my rule book it can get tricky but I'll go out on a limb and say I would call this the way I posted it which is a foul.

Now...I suppose someone "could" raise an argument that if the player was between the 9-yard marks when the RFP was given then he satisfied the requirement. The technicality is that he's still a player (and as a player) who established himself between the 9-yard marks. He just happened to go into the team box but still remained a player. I believe if someone raised this as a argument it would be a stretch and a weak argument. Thoughts on this part of it? Anyone?

lets also say that A11 catches a pass for a touchdown, would that turn into a 15 yard penalty for illegal participation or would it still be illegal formation? everyting else is the same as in the original post.

or how about OPI because he would be ineligible?

thats a great point, but he was an eligble receiver. A11 was a wide receiver.

I'm not looking at a rulebook right now but.... if that player is the player that is illegal formation, is he ineligible?

I believe he is still eligible as long as he lined up in an eligible position and has an eligible number on. The foul is for illegal formation. He's a player who lined up incorrectly.

walt,
he didn't line up correctly. he wasn't inside the mark. If a player lines up in the "no-man land" (neither on or off the LOS) That player has committed a illegal formation foul which makes him an ineligible, correct?

I don't agree but I see your point. If the player lines up correctly and he has an eligible number then the player is eligible by position and number. No foul for OPI. 7-5-6.

what would the penalty be if he catches a touchdown?

Almost sounds like a substitution/participation infraction to me. Moreso than a formation foul. Have to look this one up.

I would call dead ball illegal substitution. No player may leave the field and come back into the game on the same play or dead ball period. No book right now but could come back in if there is an accepted penalty, timeout called. But once he leaves he must be out for that play except for the previous exceptions. There are a couple of more just dont have the book.

I have to kinda go with BoBo on this one. Shouldn't we bang this
guy once he re-entered? for illegal substitution. instead letting it run into illegal formation?


ART. 3 . . . During the same dead-ball interval, no substitute shall become a player and then withdraw and no player shall withdraw and re-enter as a substitute unless a penalty is accepted, a dead-ball foul occurs, there is a charged time-out or the period ends.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tpaul

Quote:

Originally posted by BoBo I would call dead ball illegal substitution. No player may leave the field and come back into the game on the same play or dead ball period. No book right now but could come back in if there is an accepted penalty, timeout called. But once he leaves he must be out for that play except for the previous exceptions. There are a couple of more just dont have the book.

I have to kinda go with BoBo on this one. Shouldn't we bang this
guy once he re-entered? for illegal substitution. instead letting it run into illegal formation?


ART. 3 . . . During the same dead-ball interval, no substitute shall become a player and then withdraw and no player shall withdraw and re-enter as a substitute unless a penalty is accepted, a dead-ball foul occurs, there is a charged time-out or the period ends. [/QUOTE

the player can actually still become legal if he was to go in motion and get in between the numbers. this has to be a live ball situation.

I wasn't talking about the illegal formation. A11 withdrew and re-enter. Shouldn't that be illegal substitution?

Think about what 3-7-3 says. In this case A11 is a player and continues to be a player until he is replaced. Even though he went off the field during a dead ball period he was not "replaced" by another player, therefore you could argue that he is still a player. As long as he was within the numbers before he left the field, then it doesn't matter if he doesn't get within the numbers when he comes back on the field, unless ... there is some deception and he doesn't draw coverage. Then I would probably flag it as illegal participation (9-6-4d). Otherwise I don't think I'd flag it at all.

kentref,
Good point! I was looking at it as when he left the field he then wouldn't be considered a player any longer. My mistake.

This is a play on the federation website very similar to this, it is legal. It says a player who leaves thinking he is the 12 player and renters is ok. Can not do this to decieve. I assume he was inside the 9 yd marker with the rfp.

[Edited by andy1033 on Oct 2nd, 2005 at 07:09 PM]

See casebook play 3.7.3 Situation A - AS CORRECTED BY THE NATIONAL FEDERATION (SEE THEIR WEBSITE)

(I've removed some of the situation in the play below to make is simpler to read)

B11 mistakenly believes he is his team's 12th player and leaves the field before the snap....on his sideline and enters his team box. B11 then discovers his error and returns to field on his team's side of the neutral zone before the snap.

Ruling (corrected) The activity is legal, but if done intentionally to gain an advantage it would be an unsportsmanlike foul. If B11 returns to the field after the snap it a live ball foul for illegal participation.

i dont see how he can get a free pass for leaving the field and coming back into the game and not having to be between the numbers just by being on the field at the RFP. when he returns, he should have to get between the numbers or have a live ball illegal formation. i called our local interpreter and he said he asked our state interpreter the same question about 3 weeks ago and he said he has to get between the numbers when he returns. the better clean this rule up a little bit.

The player thought he was the 12th man and left the field. He wasn't replaced. Wasn't there a question like this on the test?

As for the 9-yard rule. A player must be within the 9-yard marks after the RFP. If he left the huddle after the RFP and went to the sideline, realized that he wasn't replace and lined up outside the 9-yard marks, has he met the requirement?

are you saying this should be a dead ball illegal substitution? what are you saying if not? i can tell you this is not an illegal sub. for sure.

Yankeesfan, I can agree with your logic but there is no rule support. 7-2-1 is pretty clear: "After the ball is ready for play, each player of A who participated in the previous down and each substitute for A must have been, momentarily, between the 9-yard marks, before the snap."

In this case, the player met the requirements. He was within the 9-yard marks at the ready for play. What he does after that doesn't matter.

well i cant say i agree, but i guess thats what i am going to go by for now on. the only thing that is important here is to make sure it is definetly the same player who came out of the game returns to the game and not someone else. have to keep a good eye on that. if a different player comes into the game and doesn't get in between the numbers than you will have a live ball illegal formation.

Tom, I found this.

From the Redding Guide - Example 3-10

With less than two minutes remaining in the first half, Team A is in a hurry-up offense. End A89, runs a long pass pattern and does not return to his team's huddle. He remains outside the nine-yard marks and goes to a position near the sideline after the ready. On the next play, A89 catches a pass. Ruling: Foul on A89 for an illegal formation; 5 yard penalty from the previous spot.

There's no mention of an ineligble here.

REPLY: tpaul...I don't think so, since he was never a replaced player and no substitute reported in for him. I think the most equitable way to handle it is a violation of 9-6-4d: using a player (in this case) in a pretended substitution...

Walt,
We have two different questions running in this thread.

1- if a player leaves the field and isn't replaced but re-enters ...no foul, I agree with. I scr

------------------------------------------------

2- Illegal formation: 7-2-3

ART. 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 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. (See 2-30-3)

Doesn't an eligible player have to be on the end of the line or in the back field? Doesn't that make this player ineligible? An if an ineligible player goes down field, OPI?

yes/no?

If yes to the above. Then if a player doesn't make it inside the 9 yard mark and causes a illegal formation call. Doesn't that make him an ineligible player?

Thanks Bob I understand my mistake on that one...

Thomas,

If you look at the example I cited from Redding's you'll see that it's an illegal formation and not an ineligible downfield. In the example A89 was not inside the 9-yard marks after the RFP and ended up catching a TD. If he was ineligible you'd have that plus OPI. The only infraction was an illegal formation.

REPLY: But Walt...I think this play is different. In Redding's play the WR in question was NEVER inside the 9-yd marks after the RFP. I'm assuming that in the posted play, he was inside when the RFP sounded, but had a brain cramp and left thinking he was now the 12th guy out there.

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.

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.

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.

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.

okay enough on this dead horse! LOL