Yes, only backs and ends can be eligible receivers.

It can be hard if the 6 linemen other than the snapper do not shift onto the line until right before the snap.

In NFL you can't have an ineligible number in an eligible position or vice versa unless they report so; the umpire relays that info to the other team.

In NCAA, as long as you have 5 ineligible numbers on the line it's OK. If one of them's at an end or back or T-quarterback position, the team is just sacrificing an eligible receiver. This is not uncommon when teams line up in or shift into an unbalanced line as a surprise; they may do so by shifting an end off one side and a back onto the line on the other, which does result in the erstwhile end's becoming ineligible to receive a forward pass; the defense is likely not to recognize that situation and cover that player anyway, although that player is not allowed to take advantage by going downfield as a decoy for another receiver.

Heck, they played with the forward pass for long enough without any eligible receiver numbering, so it's not insuperable. Tackle eligible plays were fair game, but it's not as if they were any guarantee of success, any more than any other type of deception in the game.

Robert

ajmc,

An interpretation meeting is just that, a meeting about interpreting the rules as they are written and addressing possible misinterpretation of the rules.

Too bad the subject of this thread, A-11, was not the subject of a rule interpretation or at least not understood causing us to spend countless posts and hours debating it.

For those of you who are advocating that the numbering exception be made a judgement call (based on likelihood of a kicking play), would you at least require the referee to inform both teams when, in his opinion, they were in a kicking situation?

Robert

Robert, you're just having some fun now, right???

In the legal system we have a term called "the reasonable man standard". It is used in different situations, i.e. self-defense cases. The jury is asked to apply the "reasonable man" standard when deciding if someone's actions were acceptable. This means the law does not have to spell out ever specific instance when a person can use deadly force in self-defense but rather the jury is permitted to decide if someone acted reasonably in whatever method they chose to use for their self-defense.

I would suggest that a similar "reasonable man" standard could be used here and therefore would not require an official to inform teams but rather would let him rely on the teams being as "reasonable" as him when determining if it was obvious a scrimmage kick might be attempted.

Fabulous idea, of course then we'd have too expand the "reasonable man standard" to cover coachs (both head and assistant), spectators, announcers, sports writers and nit pickers. Probably life, in general, would be a lot, or at least nicer.

You must be joking.

It isn't based on the likelihood of a kicking play. It is based on the likelihood that a kick may be attempted. It really isn't complicated...if it is a kicking situation and A is in a SKF then the numbering exception is used. I find it hard to believe that you are too dumb to recognize a kicking situation when it comes up.

The legal system has judgements like that all over the place, because life is a situation we're forced into. But games are invented. We have the chance to make game rules that reduce uncertainty, and I'm amazed that several posters here actually want to increase uncertainty in football. The reason I asked the above question is that although making scrimmage kick fomation a judgement call based entirely on an official's opinion of the game situation would be a terrible thing, at least the uncertainty could be mitigated if the teams were told in advance what the ref had in mind. What objection could there possibly be to requiring an announcement?

Nobody has answered my question of why the logic of "play situation" shouldn't be applied to the passing rules by Fed too. What if it looks like a pass play was called, but team A failed to pass (and thereby draw a foul by B) because their receiver(s) was/were not open because he/they was/were contacted in a way that would've been illegal on a pass play? Actually NFL does have a rule that depends on whether it looks during play as if a pass is still likely, so it's not unprecendented. Do you see why Fed spared their officials of this judgement? Even the NFL had the sense to base it on a judgement during play rather than of the play situation before the down.

Come to think of it, why not ban the forward pass except in officially-judged "passing situations"? If such judgements are so easy and equitable, wouldn't it simplify the officials' jobs to not be surprised by pass plays?

Robert

:confused:

That is hard to understand. Can you give a better example including what foul would have been called?

Can you quote this rule?

I'm fine with that. In every game I have ever seen it has been common for teams to pass on 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th down no matter where they are located on the field as well as during tries. So every scrimmage down the entire game would be a passing situation.

If it is such a terrible thing then how come it works perfectly in NCAA games?

It doesn't matter if the officials think that A will run a fake and not kick the ball, all that matters is that it is obvious that a kick may be attempted. All that matters is if it is a kicking situation or not, not the actual probability of A kicking.

There was a discussion of that here a while back -- that Fed had an illegal contact rule against potential receivers. I hadn't been aware of it until I read it here.

Not right now, but the wording was approximately that the restriction on B continute "until the runner demonstrated no further intention to pass".

[quote]I'm fine with that. In every game I have ever seen it has been common for teams to pass on 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th down no matter where they are located on the field as well as during tries. So every scrimmage down the entire game would be a passing situation.{/quote]
And I've seen kicking on all downs, so we're even.

It's just a matter of the number of teams playing under the different codes. It took many years before the A-11 was concocted; it's just a matter of time in NCAA, now that the gentleman's agreement that was apparently understood at the time the numbering exception has passed from everyone's memory.

Robert

You're serious about this? That "kicking situation" refers to something other than that probability? That the likelihood of a kick's being attempted means something different from the likelihood of a kicking play? If your use of the language is that idiosyncratic, how does anybody understand you?

Robert

Yes, that is correct. The A-11 offense is legal on 4th down in NCAA rules. The officials may feel that A is not going to kick, but it is still obvious that a kick may be attempted.