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?