Help: Disagreement on numbering exception

[ljudge]

We had a disagreement in our preGame discussion this morning when talking about muddle huddles. I'm fairly confident I understand the numbering exception under rule 7 section 2. My LJ disagrees with me and an umpire who filled in on my crew today disagrees with me as well.

Here's the formation.

84....56....62....67....72....81.................. ....2 (center)
....35............................................ .........14 (holder)...............20
.................................................. ...........27 (kicker)

OK, the numbering exception is in effect becuase we're in scrimmage kick formation. #81 is taking place of a lineman numbered 50-79. He's assumed his position on the LOS between the ends (84 & 2) and if they shift out of this formation where 81 moves to the right of #2 and is on the end of the line, by rule he's still ineligible as per the numbering exception.

Hopefully we have "so far, so good" from everyone.


We agreed on this. Now, assume we have the following formation...

84....56....62....67....72....76.....81........... ..2 (center)
.................................................. ..........14 (holder)...............20
.................................................. ...........27 (kicker)

My LJ was saying that 81 is still ineligible if they ultimately shift and is on the end of the line to the right of #2 (same shift as before).

I say he's eligible becuase he's NOT taking the place of a lineman 50-79. His interp was he's taking place of the "guard" and I say the guard, center, and tackle (where ever he's lined up) has ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY nothing to do with it.

My position is he's NOT taking the place of a lineman under that exception and that a shift would make #81 eligible.

Agree or disagree?

[BktBallRef]

Your LJ and U are wrong. There are 5 linemen numbered 50-79 on the field. There is no numbering exception.

[Theisey]

with no numbering exception in affect as it is in your second formation, #81 is eligible after the shift.

[PSU213]

I second what has already been said...he is eligible since he is not in there under the numbering exception since we already have 5 "ineligible" numbers. We went all over this in our chapter a year or two ago before finally deciding on, what I felt, was the right interpretation (that 81 IS eligible)

[wisref2]

The rule reference is 7-2-5b Exception (paraprhased): A player under this exception (taking the place of a 50-79 player) remains ineligible.

[ljudge]

OK. Let me add a twist to this. And, this is where I believe my LJ and U may be correct in their ruling, albeit for the wrong reasons.

What if the play were a try (which where you see a muddle huddle 99% of the time)?

The down starts on the try when the RFP is given, NOT when the ball is snapped. It's also a rule that when a down starts all ineligible players at the start of the down remain ineligible throughout the down.

So, if a player is lined up between the ends when the RFP is given, then shifts and is then ultimately on the end of the line, he's then still ineligible but not because of the numbering exception. He was ineligible at the start of the down.

Again, agree or disagree?

[Theisey]

By definition, a down starts with the snap or when the ball is kick to start a free kick.

The basic issue is the numbering exception. Is there one or isn't there one at the time team-A lines up in a scrimmage kick formation.

With a numbering exception in affect any "eligible" numbered player who has replaced an "ineligible" numbered player and is initially positioned between the players on the end become ineligible from that point even if a shift effectively puts him on the end of the line.

NF treats a shift to put this guy in an eligible position kinder than the NCAA does. By that I mean all you have is a guy who is still an ineligible receiver.
The NCAA also calls this an illegal formation at the snap. That's why you rarely see this as a problem at the NCAA level.

[ljudge]

Originally Posted by Theisey

By definition, a down starts with the snap or when the ball is kick to start a free kick.

I agree, but take a look at 8-3-2. That's where I was going with my new "twist" thinking a TRY started different than a regular down, which is when the ball is snapped as you stated.

[Theisey]

I really don't know what the NF is trying to point out with that statement.

So I decided to see how the NCAA defined the TRY.
A try is an opportunity for either team to score one or two poitns while the game clock is stopped and is a special interval in a game which, for purposes of penalty enforcement only, includes both a down and the "ready" period that precedes it.

(I underlined that part)

At least they say a TRY includes the time before the snap and after the snap.

Later they say that dead-ball fouls occuring after the ready-for-play and before the snap are penalized before the next snap.

A down is still the down and starts with the snap.

[BktBallRef]

I agree with Tom.

Since a try is an untimed down, for penalty enforcement purposes, the try begins with the ready. The down itself does not begin until the ball is snapped.

There would be an exception to 2-37 if the PAT down began at the ready. But there is no exception.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: Who am I to argue with BBR, THeisey, and PSU213? They've nailed it. If there are five numbered 50-79 at the snap, there's no exception to be invoked. If you don't invoke the exception, you can't place the additional eligibility restrictions on Team A that are only specified for the exception.

[ljudge]

Thanks for the prompt replies. You've all given me the "ammo" I needed for my argument. I was confident I was correct on this on Saturday and wasn't about to back down. Some people simply don't want to listen.

[Suudy]

Originally Posted by ljudge

Thanks for the prompt replies. You've all given me the "ammo" I needed for my argument. I was confident I was correct on this on Saturday and wasn't about to back down. Some people simply don't want to listen.

This is always delicate with officials who have their mind made up. I worked umpire a couple of seasons, and I had a wing guy who swore that a player could _never_ contact the snapper. I never flagged it because in almost every situation, the snapper would come up immediately and block. It got to the point where the wing guy was so sure of himself, he started throwing a flag from the sidelines on tries for roughing the snapper.

It wasn't until my WH handed him a photocopied section of the rule book with the appropriate section highlighted and a stern "don't do that again" before he agreed he was wrong--despite my own efforts to show the rule book to the guy and to respectfully demonstrate my own position. I hope your guy is considerably more open-minded and willing to learn.