can anyone in the backfield (running back) use the number 67? We had a coach last Friday that said it was no problem and crews have let him do it before. I believe backs can only wear 1-49 and 80-99.

If a "back" wants to be an eligible receiver he must wear the proper number, otherwise he can wear any number.

To add to what Theisey said he can line up anywhere and can run the ball all night. He can even run pass routes all he wants, but if he is downfield and a pass is thrown beyond the NZ to another player, we have ineligible player downfield foul. If the pass is thrown to him while he is downfield and he muffs or catches it, we have OPI.

By the way, only in the NFL can he report to the referee to become eligible for a play.

MJT nailed it. There are teams out there that run 99% of the time though, and if this is one of those times, he is right that his back's number is legal.

One question for the coach --- WHY? If the kid's a back, give him a back number and you'll never have to worry about screwing up.

One possible answer (and had this)....the kid sometimes alternates at guard and he needs to make the numbering requirement for 5 players numbered 50-79 on the line.

Ditto- 67 is a legal number for a runner....he just can't go out for a pass anywhere....we did have a coach who told us his team had been penalized for an 'illegal runner' one night. I asked him which signal the WH used to indicate that.

Canadian Ruling
 

He's an ineligible reciever unless he declares himself eligible to the referee.

To add to what Theisey said he can line up anywhere and can run the ball all night. He can even run pass routes all he wants, but if he is downfield and a pass is thrown beyond the NZ to another player, we have ineligible player downfield foul. If the pass is thrown to him while he is downfield and he muffs or catches it, we have OPI.

To add one more thing . . .. . .

I think we have OPI even if he is downfield and just touches touches the ball. (whether the contact is incidental or intentional) OPI differs from illegal touching in that in order for OPI to occur all an inlegible has to do it touch the ball beyond the NZ, in order for there to be illegal touching (behind the NZ) there has to be intentional contact (muff, batt, catch). We had a team in week 3 who had backs #55 & #70 and I remember going over these scenarios regarding ineligible downfield, illegal touching, and OPI at the time.

This got me thinking. I don't have my books handy, so I'd like to throw out a couple of scenarios:

Scenario #1:
A's ball, 1st and 10 from A's 20. Ineligible A3 goes downfield. QB A2 throws to A1 at A's 31, who bats the ball back to A3 on A's 30. A3 catches the ball and is downed at A's 30.

Scenario #2:
A's ball, 1st and 10 from A's 20. Ineligible A3 goes downfield. QB A2 throws to A1 at A's 31, who attempts to bat the ball back to A3 on A's 30. While the ball is in flight, before the batting by A1, (a) B1 knocks A3 down, (b) B1 grabs A3's jersey and pulls him out of the way in an attempt to get to A1, (c) B1 tackles A3. The pass hits the ground.

Rulings?

Scenario #1:
I'd expect to see at least 1 flag: ineligible receiver downfield. And my gut tells me there is an OPI on A3. Since PI restrictions on A don't end until B touches the ball (or the last pass ends, but since this is well beyond the NZ, there shouldn't be another pass), its OPI.

Of course a multiple foul on A, so B chooses the OPI, 2nd and 20 from A's 10.

Scenario #2:
In all 3 cases, incomplete pass. For both (a) and (b) think only the ineligible receiver downfield should be called on A3 (assuming the contact by B1 was legal--i.e. not a hit in the back, etc). Perhaps in (c) something could be called on B1 (holding?), but since A3 isn't eligible...

In (a) and (b), 1st and 15 from A's 15. In (c), perhaps double foul, replay the down, 1st and 10 from A's 20.

Thoughts?

REPLY: suudy...I agree with your rulings. In 2c, I do think you would be justified in calling B for defensive holding yielding a double foul.