Back me up here guys

[Jim D]

Very good point, Warren. I hadn't thought of it that way. Also, what would this player do to the eligibility of the player who was on the end of the line before the motion man started down the line?

[ChickenOfNC]

Originally Posted by Jim D

Very good point, Warren. I hadn't thought of it that way. Also, what would this player do to the eligibility of the player who was on the end of the line before the motion man started down the line?

Another good question.

[MJT]

I never thought of it that way warrenkicker. Most teams do not go in motion that way, most go straight from where they are as a back.

Jim, if he is not a linemen or back, then I would say he is not "covering up" someone else and making them ineligible.

[Jim D]

This is a tough call because it falls in those areas that the rules makers probably weren't really considering when they wrote the rules. Since the motion man at the snap isn't a back anymore by rule and he isn't a lineman, it should be an illegal formation but not illegal motion. The eligibility issue is not as clear so I'd just flag the illegal formation and leave it at that. This will be a tough call to sell.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by Jim D

This is a tough call because it falls in those areas that the rules makers probably weren't really considering when they wrote the rules. Since the motion man at the snap isn't a back anymore by rule and he isn't a lineman, it should be an illegal formation but not illegal motion. The eligibility issue is not as clear so I'd just flag the illegal formation and leave it at that. This will be a tough call to sell.

Illegal motion. Since the player was a lineman at the time he went in motion his staus does not change unless he becomes set in the backfield. By rule as a lineman he must be five yards behind the line at the snap [This is an artifact of the days when a player could enter the free blocking zone and block below the waist.]

NFHS rules prohibit a player form being in motion on the LOS.

If the lineman had stepped off the line and became set for one second his status chages and his flexibility for being in motion increases.

[Suudy]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

NFHS rules prohibit a player form being in motion on the LOS.

I never understood that to be the case. As I've read 7-2-7, all I've gathered is that if a player started on the LOS, then they shall be at least 5 yards behind the LOS at the snap. It only prohibits a player that starts on the LOS from being in motion on the LOS.

The phrase "...the player in motion shall be at least 5 yards behind his line of scrimmage at the snap if he started from any position not clearly behind the line and did not establish himself as a back..." is silent if the player starts as a back.

Originally Posted by ChickenOfNC

A82 is split wide to my Linesman's side (I'm the LJ). A82 is set as a back. He then goes in motion, up to the LOS and then parallel toward the TE, then the ball is snapped.

Since this player started as a back, the 5 yard restriction seems to be moot.

If A2 moves towards the LOS, then sidesteps in motion with his shoulders roughly parallel to the LOS, it seems he is a lineman. As such, the motion seems legal to me (if sidestepping). Of course eligibility may change, but I see nothing wrong with the side-step approach.

[Warrenkicker]

Originally Posted by Jim D

Very good point, Warren. I hadn't thought of it that way. Also, what would this player do to the eligibility of the player who was on the end of the line before the motion man started down the line?

I had thought of that as well but didn't want to confuse things with that statement. If this player is not considered a lineman then he has not changed the eligibility of the end which may be inside of his position. However if he is in motion with his shoulders parallel to the goal line then he may meet the requirements of a lineman and now will change the eligibility of the end if he is inside of his position. However, can the player be in motion, be a lineman, and not be on the end of his line? I suppose he could. One of the wings had better be watching for ineligible down field during that one as the man in motion will be under the wing's keys.

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by Warrenkicker

I had thought of that as well but didn't want to confuse things with that statement. If this player is not considered a lineman then he has not changed the eligibility of the end which may be inside of his position. However if he is in motion with his shoulders parallel to the goal line then he may meet the requirements of a lineman and now will change the eligibility of the end if he is inside of his position. However, can the player be in motion, be a lineman, and not be on the end of his line? I suppose he could. One of the wings had better be watching for ineligible down field during that one as the man in motion will be under the wing's keys.

warrenkicker, I agree. He's on the line breaking the snapper's waist plane so he's supposed to have his shoulders parallel, doesn't, therefore illegal formation.