Scrimmage Kick Numbering Exception

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by cmathews

we have an illegal formation...live ball 5 yds previous spot

I take it you are talking about NCAA rules. What makes this formation illegal in NCAA?

[refbuz]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I take it you are talking about NCAA rules. What makes this formation illegal in NCAA?

Because 47 is using the numbering exception, you cannot shift to make him an eligible receiver once the center has touched, or simulated touching the ball. The center touching the ball is what locks in eligibility on scrimmage kicks. (1-4-2-b)

Is there anything that prevents this shift from being legal on Friday nights?

[OverAndBack]

There was no shift in the original example, was there?

[refbuz]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

There was no shift in the original example, was there?

No. Merely bringing a "what-if" to the discussion.

[Mike L]

for NFHS, the only thing the shift has done is #17 becomes ineligible by position. #47 remains ineligible due to initial position. So trying to shift around like this can only result in fewer eligible receivers for A.

[Welpe]

Thanks refbuz. I'm just starting to learn NCAA rules (moving to Texas next year) so I am asking questions where I can.

[refbuz]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Thanks refbuz. I'm just starting to learn NCAA rules (moving to Texas next year) so I am asking questions where I can.

This is my 1st year in college, its not that bad, I think that enforcements are relatively easier, it just takes more concentration to not kick an enforcement that confuses the 2.

It turns out that we just discussed the rule a couple weeks ago. That is the main reason that I know it.

[Tom Hinrichs]

In NF rules, the formation is legal after the shift. However, #47 remains inelligible.

[jjrye22]

Refbuz - I'm not sure why you have called this shift example as an illegal formation.
The shift has made #17 inelligible, and #47 stays inelligible, but as long as he stays on the line he is still just a lineman.
I don't remember anything about the last man on the line having a requirement to be an elligible receiver as your post implies.

Whould you really flag this at the snap as illegal formation? Or just keep an eye on #47 since he was inelligible by rule even if not by position?

Just want to get full clarification.

[refbuz]

Originally Posted by jjrye22

Refbuz - I'm not sure why you have called this shift example as an illegal formation.

I'm an Umpire, so I can say with reasonable certainty that a formation foul will NEVER be my foul, but whether it is a foul or not depends on the rules being used.

With NCAA rules it's a foul (1-4-2(b)/A.R. 1-4-2 IV/V).

In NFHS it is not a foul, as K's "penalty" for the shift is losing an eligible receiver.

The shift has made #17 inelligible, and #47 stays inelligible, but as long as he stays on the line he is still just a lineman.
I don't remember anything about the last man on the line having a requirement to be an elligible receiver as your post implies.

I merely asked IF they shift who's LOOKING FOR WHAT.

I think that we can all agree that if something messed up is gonna happen during a game, its gonna happen on a punt.

The point of my post was to get some input to see who's got 47 to make sure that he's not going downfield on fakes or if it breaks down. In HS, he is inelligible and remains that way, but who is looking for it?

What if they shift, run a fake, and pass it to 47. He catches a pass and advances for a TD.

Who's responsibility is it to make sure that 47 doesn't go downfield and catch the game changing TD? Is it solely the umpire's call? Is there help from the wings? Does the number of officials on the field change who would catch that?

That's a train-wreck that we HAVE to catch.

It's an easy foul to get if 47 is the long-snapper and goes downfield and catches or doesn't catch the ball. Based on where 47 is lined up in this formation that call is not as easy to make.

This is kinda the direction i was looking to go.

Whould you really flag this at the snap as illegal formation? Or just keep an eye on #47 since he was inelligible by rule even if not by position?

In a college game? I would absolutely expect the wings to throw it because it is a foul, not in a HS game though.

Just want to get full clarification.

I hope that you got it.

[mbyron]

The A-11 has now hit the mainstream media -- that should get FED's attention.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/sp...17offense.html

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by mbyron

The A-11 has now hit the mainstream media -- that should get FED's attention.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/sp...17offense.html

Okay, tell me if I'm wrong:



Seven players on the LOS are 1-7 (the numbers in the schematic, not their jersey numbers, which we can't discern)
Eligible receivers have yellow dots (two guys on the end of the line and the three backs - technically I suppose the quarterback could be an eligible receiver as well?)
Ineligible receivers have red dots.
We don't know at what point this photo was taken, but if we presume this is everybody's initial positions, those are the eligibles, correct?

Doesn't seem that complicated. The spreading out of the formation makes it look funky, but they have seven guys on the line, and anybody between the ends who is numbered 1-49 or 80-99 can take the place of someone numbered 50-79 as there is a player seven yards behind the snapper ready to receive the snap. Is that correct?

Simple fixes that put the A11 guy out of business: remove the exception, and say you must have five guys between the ends numbered 50-79, period. Or that the scrimmage kick formation that triggers the exception can only be used on fourth down or in an obvious punting situation (start the debate about "obvious punting situation,").

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by mbyron

The A-11 has now hit the mainstream media -- that should get FED's attention.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/sp...17offense.html

Here are the scores from Piedmont High School games - running the revolutionary A-11 offense.

9/06/08 @ Drake L, 7-21
9/12/08 vs. Stallworth L, 34-61
9/20/08 @ Laguna Beach W, 17-15
10/03/08 vs. St. Mary’s W, 35-14
10/10/08 vs. Encinal L, 18-39

Wow – 111 points in five games. No other offense could possibly put up those kinds of numbers.

[jjrye22]

Refbuz
Thanks for your heads up interpretation. I read the rule book a few times a year, and I'm sure I have read this
'He must be positioned on the line of scrimmage and between the end players on the line of scrimmage'
about the original position of the player, but I don't think it ever sunk in before. I had always just remembered that he would stay inelligible.

Learning these finer details (nuances) are a real challenge, especially after you are comfortable with things. I'm glad the board is here to keep expanding our awareness!