eligible back

Forksref · #1 (**permalink**) Fri Nov 04, 2005, 11:13pm

#78 lines up as a back. Is he eligible to (A) run the ball;
(B) catch a pass behind the LOS; (C) catch a pass beyond the LOS?

gtwbam · #2 (**permalink**) Fri Nov 04, 2005, 11:39pm

Yes in "A" Number 78 can run the ball as a back.
In "B" the ruling would be "Illegal Touching" by an Ineligible Receiver resulting in a 5 yard penalty and loss of down.
In "C" you have "Offensive Pass Interference" resulting in a 15 yard penalty from the previous spot and loss of down.

Snake~eyes · #3 (**permalink**) Sat Nov 05, 2005, 01:40am

A) Yes
B & C) Yes, I can think of some situations where this would be legal. But illegal in some circumstances.

ljudge · #4 (**permalink**) Sat Nov 05, 2005, 09:27am

The only way he can catch a pass is if B first touches the ball. (unless I'm missing something). If the pass is tipped by an eligible (A) receiver #78 may not touch the pass but he can legally contact a B opponent trying to intercept the ball without being called for DPI.

What other ways are there?

Ineligibles can catch a backward pass any time.

Texoma_LJ · #5 (**permalink**) Sat Nov 05, 2005, 10:19am

One thing to remember in the B & C situations is that since #78 is an ineligible, he may not go beyone the neutral zone or else we will flag for ineligible downfield.

#6 (**permalink**) Sat Nov 05, 2005, 11:01am

We had this last week in a game. A team would puit #64 in the backfield for a full house formation. They just used him to block. Everytime he was in the backfield they ran the ball.

Snake~eyes · #7 (**permalink**) Sat Nov 05, 2005, 11:24am

You've got it ljudge, tip by B, backwards pass and illegal forward pass can all be caught by #76.

Jim S · #8 (**permalink**) Sat Nov 05, 2005, 01:52pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Texoma_LJ
One thing to remember in the B & C situations is that since #78 is an ineligible, he may not go beyone the neutral zone or else we will flag for ineligible downfield.

The expanded Neutral Zone...

Smiley · #9 (**permalink**) Sat Nov 05, 2005, 07:39pm

An ineligible may only go beyond the NZ to the limits of the ENZ if he is in the act of blocking.

dumbref · #10 (**permalink**) Sun Nov 06, 2005, 12:46pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Jim S

Quote:

Originally posted by Texoma_LJ
One thing to remember in the B & C situations is that since #78 is an ineligible, he may not go beyone the neutral zone or else we will flag for ineligible downfield.

The expanded Neutral Zone...

I believe the neutral zone only expands for A legally on the line blocking B who is also on the line. With #78 in the back field, he may not go beyond the neutral zone until

MJT · #11 (**permalink**) Sun Nov 06, 2005, 02:36pm

Quote:

Originally posted by dumbref

Quote:

Originally posted by Jim S

Quote:

Originally posted by Texoma_LJ
One thing to remember in the B & C situations is that since #78 is an ineligible, he may not go beyone the neutral zone or else we will flag for ineligible downfield.

The expanded Neutral Zone...

I believe the neutral zone only expands for A legally on the line blocking B who is also on the line. With #78 in the back field, he may not go beyond the neutral zone until

Dumbref, I believe you are correct, as in casebook 2.6.2 it says the NZ is expanded "to allow offensive linemen to..."
Since #78 was not a lineman, he is not allowed to be in the ENZ. Good luck noticing that one though.