Mull it over

[Bob M.]

REPLY: BoBo...for your play, after the shift, #88 remains ineligible. The reason is that there are less than five numbered 50-79 on the line at the snap, so the numbering exception is in effect. Since #88 took a position initially as an interior lineman under the numbering exception, he remains ineligible for the down.

[BoBo]

thank you for reassuring my thoughts.

now when does elgibility begin in this situation?

when the center places his hands on the ball?

i am sure we have all had this play and 88 begins as inelgible, then we have a had a bad snap and i am sure he goes out for a pass.

Honestly how many of us miss/let this go?

Explaining the rule to the coach will be lots of fun. And I am sure it will respond "we have always done it this way and it has never been flagged before"

just my two cents worth

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by BoBo

thank you for reassuring my thoughts.

now when does elgibility begin in this situation?

when the center places his hands on the ball?

You determine eligibility when everyone is set. The position of the snapper's hands have no bearing.

i am sure we have all had this play and 88 begins as inelgible, then we have a had a bad snap and i am sure he goes out for a pass.

Honestly how many of us miss/let this go?

It's my job (umpire) to see that we don't miss this. The first time I see this formation I'll make a mental note of anyone who's ineligible by position. As soon as I get a chance I'm writing those numbers on my game card.

Explaining the rule to the coach will be lots of fun. And I am sure it will respond "we have always done it this way and it has never been flagged before"

Give this comment the same credence as you do any other similar comment from a coach. You weren't at last week's game and have no way of confirming if they did get away with this.

So if ineligibility is determined by the original position, what about twin receivers at the end? Lets say the offense wants the defense to think run, so they line up with 8 on the line (with the twins both being on, one being covered) and then they shift so the inside twin goes off, and then starts a motion. Is he ineligible because he was covered originally or is he eligible because he stepped off and became a back?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Ref Ump Welsch

So if ineligibility is determined by the original position,

But as someone pointed out here not long ago, that's only if the initial formation would have, had the ball been snapped, taken advantage of the numbering exception. Had there been 5 or more numbered 50 thru 79 on the line, that entire consideration would be irrelevant.

What's also interesting is that, as in other place kicking situations, if the ball is held by a player with one or more knees down, you have the unusual situation of having to simultaneously watch another player to determine if the ball is or becomes dead. Do you allow any "hysteresis" there if the situation starts with an ostensible kicker? That is, do you look for the instant that he moves into a position from which you judge it's no longer an ostensible kick, or do you allow a little extra time for the holder to rise off his knee(s)?

In rec.sport.football.officiating a few years ago, the question also came up as to what the defense could do to make the ball dead while a placing of the ball for a kick was still active. It seems some form of holding the runner so his progress is stopped, or getting him into some "down" position other than kneeling, would be required.

Robert

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Ref Ump Welsch

So if ineligibility is determined by the original position, what about twin receivers at the end? Lets say the offense wants the defense to think run, so they line up with 8 on the line (with the twins both being on, one being covered) and then they shift so the inside twin goes off, and then starts a motion. Is he ineligible because he was covered originally or is he eligible because he stepped off and became a back?

If it's not a scrimmage kick formation they can do whatever they'd like. But if it is a scrimmage kick and the player in question starts as a lineman under the numbering exception then no amount of shifts or motion can make him eligible.

[wisref2]

If in a scrimmage kick formation (7 yards or more behind LOS), 88 can't become eligible. This applies only to scrimmage kick formation - he originally lined up as a lineman. The restriction starts after the ready for play. Once they leave the huddle and go somewhere in a scrimmage kick formation, they are stuck with that status.

In my original play (holder was 4 yards behind LOS), 88 can become eligible.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by waltjp

If it's not a scrimmage kick formation they can do whatever they'd like. But if it is a scrimmage kick and the player in question starts as a lineman under the numbering exception then no amount of shifts or motion can make him eligible.

And determining whether it's a scrimmage kick formation could require watching the "kicker", even if the ostensible holder is only 4 yards back, because the other player could be in position to receive a snap and be more than 7 yards behind the NZ.

Sheesh, considering all there is about this to "mull over", maybe Fed should consider allowing numbers to "report ineligible" and abolish the formation numbering exception. Maybe even eliminate "scrimmage kick formation". A few years ago I proposed a snapper's head up vs. head down criterion as an alternative way to protect the snapper.

Robert

[wisref2]

Robert - that's a great catch! You're absolutely right, the location of the kicker (rather than the holder) could make it a scrimmage kick formation.