NFL Illegal Formation

[Suudy]

In the Seahawks-Minnesota game, Seattle was called for illegal formation. The WH said it was because the tight-end was covered by a wide receiver. Watching the replay, it looked like they had 8 on the LOS. The play was roll out, and the flag was down before a pass was thrown. If the TE was downfield, I'd think it would be an ineligible downfield.

Does the NFL require exactly 7 on the line? Why was this a foul for illegal formation?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Suudy

In the Seahawks-Minnesota game, Seattle was called for illegal formation. The WH said it was because the tight-end was covered by a wide receiver. Watching the replay, it looked like they had 8 on the LOS. The play was roll out, and the flag was down before a pass was thrown. If the TE was downfield, I'd think it would be an ineligible downfield.

Does the NFL require exactly 7 on the line? Why was this a foul for illegal formation?

It's an illegal formation foul for an eligible-number receiver to be covered up in the NFL.

[MJT]

Originally Posted by Suudy

In the Seahawks-Minnesota game, Seattle was called for illegal formation. The WH said it was because the tight-end was covered by a wide receiver. Watching the replay, it looked like they had 8 on the LOS. The play was roll out, and the flag was down before a pass was thrown. If the TE was downfield, I'd think it would be an ineligible downfield.

Does the NFL require exactly 7 on the line? Why was this a foul for illegal formation?

If I remember right it was an IF foul for the tackle being on the end of the LOS, not covered up by the TE, as he was too far back, and that is a foul in the NFL. If an ineligible number is in an eligible position and has not reported to the referee, it is a foul for IF.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

It's an illegal formation foul for an eligible-number receiver to be covered up in the NFL.

I found this from Markbreit's column:

Originally Posted by Jerry Markbreit's column

What on earth is an illegal formation penalty for the "wide receiver covering the tight end?" The Bears were hit with two of these in Sunday's game. In 20 years of watching football, I have never heard of that. --Matt, Coralville, Iowa

Under NFL rules, players are numbered for eligibility. Tight ends and wide receivers must be on the end of the line of scrimmage in order to be an eligible pass receiver. If a wide receiver is on the line of scrimmage and a tight end is inside of him, an illegal formation has occurred because another eligible has covered the eligible tight end. The formation would be legal if the wide receiver would drop off of the line of scrimmage so that he is not in a direct line with the tight end.

[mikesears]

Eligible numbers must be in eligible positions and ineligible numbers must be in ineligible positions. If they want to change their status, they must report to the referee who will then notify the other team.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by MJT

If I remember right it was an IF foul for the tackle being on the end of the LOS, not covered up by the TE, as he was too far back, and that is a foul in the NFL. If an ineligible number is in an eligible position and has not reported to the referee, it is a foul for IF.

Nope. See above.

[MJT]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Nope. See above.

We are talking about 2 different games, but it doesn't matter. Both cases are a foul in the NFL..

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by MJT

We are talking about 2 different games, but it doesn't matter. Both cases are a foul in the NFL..

We aren't. Maybe YOU are. The rest of us are talking about a WR covering a TE, not some completely different situation. Yes, your situation which has nothing to do with the topic is also illegal ... but it has nothing to do with the topic.

[Suudy]

Well, this explains why I sometimes get coaches complaining that A had 12 on the line. Now my response can be the usual "only on Sunday" comment.

Originally Posted by mikesears

Eligible numbers must be in eligible positions and ineligible numbers must be in ineligible positions. If they want to change their status, they must report to the referee who will then notify the other team.

So there is no specific requirement that there be specific number of eligibles? If A brought in 6 lineman, all numbered 50-79, and none were on the end of the line or in the backfield (i.e. only 3 in the backfield, 2 on the end of the line for 5 total eligible), would this be legal?

[sj]

Rich

You mention a column that Markbreidt has. Do you have a link to it?

Thanks

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by Suudy

Well, this explains why I sometimes get coaches complaining that A had 12 on the line. Now my response can be the usual "only on Sunday" comment.

So there is no specific requirement that there be specific number of eligibles? If A brought in 6 lineman, all numbered 50-79, and none were on the end of the line or in the backfield (i.e. only 3 in the backfield, 2 on the end of the line for 5 total eligible), would this be legal?

The other rules still apply. Minimum 7 on the line, all eligible receivers must be eligible numbers, all ineligible receivers must be ineligible numbers, exceptions must report. Your sitch (8 on the line) is legal, assuming numbering matches.

[mikesears]

Originally Posted by Suudy

Well, this explains why I sometimes get coaches complaining that A had 12 on the line. Now my response can be the usual "only on Sunday" comment.

So there is no specific requirement that there be specific number of eligibles? If A brought in 6 lineman, all numbered 50-79, and none were on the end of the line or in the backfield (i.e. only 3 in the backfield, 2 on the end of the line for 5 total eligible), would this be legal?

From my limited understanding of the rule, it would be legal to do as you suggest. Others may correct me if I've missed something in the rulebook.