Passes while in punt formation question--

[Bob M.]

REPLY: This is a question I've had for years and I've never seen it actually answered. Oh yes...many have had opinions, but I've never seen a definitive answer. Assume a legal scrimmage kick formation and consider this line formation (dots used for spacing purposes):

INITIAL FORMATION:
.........80 56 50 67 73 87 89
....61


AFTER SHIFT:
....61 80 56 50 67 73 87
....................................89

We know that #80 is ineligible since he is covered by #61 at the snap. the BIG question is this: Is #87 eligible?

It's my opinion that he is. The standard numbering rule says that Team A must have five numbered 50-79 on the ljne at the snap. They do. Therefore there is no numbering exception in force on this play. Since there's no numbering exception, you can't place additional eligiblility restrictions on Team A. Thus, #89's shift makes #87 eligible.

The rule quote that Ref in SoCA mentioned ("A player in the game under this exception must assume an initial position on his line of scrimmage between the ends and he remains an ineligible forward-pass receiver during that down unless the pass is touched by B (7-5-6b).") is absolutely true, but only if Team A is operating under the numbering exception (note, it even uses the words "under this exception"). Since A had five numbered 50-79 on the line at the snap there IS no exception so they can't be operating under it.

I'm sure we'll hear others' opinions. I just offered to share mine.

[Jim D]

Bob, The play seems to be covered in Case Book 7.2.5 Situation D. I'll change the numbers in the case to match your numbering.

"Team A sets in a scrimmage-kick formation with Number 79 in the deep position as the potential kicker. Number 87 is positioned as an interior lineman between the ends as an exception to the numbering requirement. A shifts and Number 87 assumes a position on the end of the line. Number 61 is now on the other end of the line and number 80, who started on the end, is now an interior lineman...RULING...Number 87 remains ineligible..."

Although the rule sets the exception at the snap, the Case Book sets it based on the initial position.

[Texas Aggie]

Number 80 is lined up as third player from center.

Third FROM center, meaning outside the normal tackle position? Or, in the tackle position?

Under NCAA rules, if the former, he is eligible. If the latter, he is ineligible. 1-4-2-b. If ineligible initially, he remains ineligible even after a shift.

[BuckeyeRef]

This would also affect the muddle huddle type set up on an extra point attempt when team then shifts into a traditional formation. For example the team attempting the try lines up in this formation:

..........42....................................80 .62.44.52.55.35
..............................................40.. ......................38

After the shift, the formation looks like this:

...80.62.44.42.52.55.35.
40.............................38

Assuming I am reading this ruling correctly, #80 is an ineligible receiver because he assumed an inital position on the line between the ends and the kicking team is using the numbering exception. #35 remains eligible because he was an end in the initial formation and remains an end in the formation after the shift. So, if there is a bad snap or bobble by the holder, or a fake, and #80 heads downfield, I've got a penalty.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: Jim...thanks. If case play 7.2.5D also said that at the snap there were five offensive linemen numbered 50-79, I'd consider myself corrected. But it doesn't and I've never seen an interpretation or case play that does. In fact, based upon the way 7.2.5D is worded, it's clear that no additional ineligible numbers shifted onto the line. Therefore this play does not illustrate that same situation I did in my post. And I fully agree with the case play that if there are less than five 50-79 on the line at the snap, #33 certainly remains ineligible throughout the down.

[Jim D]

Bob, OK, I see your point. Based on what is actually written in the rules, I agree with your opinion as written.

[Mike L]

Personally, I take the term "initial position" to mean just that, the initial position assumed prior to shifts/motions. Per Webster on line "initial" means
1 : of or relating to the beginning : INCIPIENT
2 : placed at the beginning : FIRST.

The entire point of the rule, in my opinion, is to not allow A to use shifts and motion to suddenly make an ineligible player eligible while using the number exception. So in the example, 61 is not on the line in the initial position, and therefore is not considered for numbering exception rules for the rest of the down. Only those players on the line matter for numbering exceptions from their initial positions.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Mike L

Personally, I take the term "initial position" to mean just that, the initial position assumed prior to shifts/motions.

How far would you take that? Suppose they lined up:

..............50.........51.........52...........5 3...........80.............54
........46........47.....................48....... ......................49

and #10 ten yards behind the snapper. And then they shifted into:

......46.....50..........51.........52.....48..... 53..........80
.....................47........................... ........................49.....54

with #10 still ten yards behind the snapper. The way they first lined up was an illegal formation just for not having 7 on the line, although they did have five numbered 50-79. Does 80 become eligible after the shift, or does the way they lined up first "not count" as "initial position" because they couldn't've legally snapped the ball from it?

Robert

[Warrenkicker]

Your initial formation is not using the numbering exception. The numbering exception has nothing to do with having a legal formation as to 7 on the line, it only takes effect when there are fewer than 5 50-79 players in a scrimmage kick formation. Those requirements were met in the initial formation. After the shift 80 was uncovered and became eligible and the number exception went into effect. If K shifts again and the numbering exception is still being used then, say 48 moves back and 49 moves up, then 48 still isn't eligible. But if 49 moves up I would say that 80 just became ineligible.