REPLY: Kevin...I saw the same thing as Robert did whe I read the REFEREE article. I think what he's pointing out is that REFEREE neglected to consider the ends. So in fact they should have said is probably:

“On first, second or third down, when the kicking team sets or shifts into a scrimmage-kick formation with a holder, only one lineman other than those players on the end of the line may wear a number other than 50-79 inclusive. That player must snap the ball and must be positioned between the ends. …”

I believe it's OK at Cdn. amateur but not at Cdn. pro. I know this because a couple of years ago some of our CFL guys were working a HS game locally and flagged this play because it's NOT legit at pro not knowing it was OK in amateur.

Yes, we had an interesting discussion with the coach afterwards.....doo'oh!

Yes, my posts refer to amateur rulings.

OK, I see said the blind man!!!
 

BobM and Robert:

My apologies to Robert!
Sometimes you can't see the forest thru the trees!!!

Since both the Definition of Scrimmage Kick and 7-2-5 are being re-written, thus, I would expect to find somewhere in 7-2-5 something like:

On first, second or third down, when the kicking team sets or shifts into a scrimmage-kick formation with a holder, only one lineman may wear a number other than 50-79 inclusive and that player must snap the ball and must be positioned between the ends. He remains an ineligible reciever throught the down unless the opponent touchs the ball. Additionally, at the snap, at least four A lineman must be numbered 50-79 inclusive.

This is the intent of the rule change. If he wording does not come out as clear as expected I suspect SRH may have wording to correct it in time for the 2010 rule book. :cool:

But then it would become redundant! "...one lineman other than those players on the end of the line...and must be positioned between the ends...."

So maybe it should have said:
That would allow for the possibility that a player on the end of A's line and the snapper would have the same identity. But we still don't know if that's what Fed adopted.

Robert in the Bronx

Robert;

In response to your suggested wording of:

[B]...of all players on A's line, only those on its ends and the snapper may wear a number other than 50-79 inclusive. [/B]

I guess I remain confused. Why would you want to restrict say the "traditional left guard" from wearing #22 if his team was to meet all the other requirments of a scrimmage kick formation including: a holder, a kicker, a "covered up snapper" wearing #3, and four other lineman wearing 50-79 and these four lineman are located ANYWHERE on the LOS?

Restated, I see no reason why, as long as you have four lineman wearing 50-79, the end can not be #79 and the left guard #22 and the covered up center #3. Obviusly #79, #3, & #22 would be ineligible, however since they are kicking a field goal it normally would not be an issue.


Am I still missing something?: :confused:

Remembering back to the reasoning given when the "numbering exception" was introduced, which was in part; That at a time when the perception was that the more gifted athletes, by nature of their skills and abilities very often were assigned "eligible" numbers, as they normally performed in the "skill" offensive and defensive positions, the objective was to expand the opportunity for these players to be more useable in scrimmage kick situations.

Over time it seems the emphasis may have evolved from using these athletic talents to better support the kicking game, to having those talents available for use in their primary purpose in kicking situations.

Subject to what the actuall wording of these revision turns out to be, it seems the effort of the revision may be to continue allowing gifted athletes to participate in the kicking game, but to redirect the focus of limiting those talents towards supporting the kicking game rather than other offensive capabilities.

It's not about getting more playing time for gifted athletes. It's about having a long snapper that may not be your regular snapper. Only 23 words to state the obvious.

I don't know about you guys, but I'm wondering where this whole "gifted athletes" thing comes from and the semi-veiled suggestion that the widebody big numbers somehow don't fit that description. I've seen some very gifted players at those positions that simply dominate the game.

Sometimes "sensitivity" can get kind of silly. The only semi-veiled suggestion exists deep in your mind. As a former Center (which is what "Snappers" were call many years ago) there was no intent to discredit or slight interior linemen.

I don't know what your problem is daggo66, but I doubt you're anyway near competent to correct my recollections of what the reasoning given for the numbering exception was when it was introduced. Congratulations on being brief, now only if that prevented you from being wrong.

I gave up looking for "gifted athlete" in Rule 2 or the index.

It must be in someone's imagination and fits in with their vagaries of explanation. My guess is that it won't be in the new rule book either.

My take on the numbering exception was that it allowed faster players to be on the line and give better punt coverage. Maybe a reputable coach could tell us about that.

As for the rule change, I will wait for the NFHS rule book to come out before trying to understand wordage which none of us have seen. Maybe it will be in the Redding NFHS book which is coming out next month.

Was I brief?

For the Record
 

The scrimmage kick formation numbering exception was added to the NFHS Rules Book in 1982.
The rationale was to eliminate the need for pull over type jerseys which were considered unsafe.



31 Words :cool:

Forgive me, grasshopper, but the pull over jerseys were being used to allow players who were regularly positioned as backs, ends and defensive players wearing otherwise eligible numbers to participate, out of position, in scrimmage kick formations. (Granted "gifted athletes" may not have been the best descriptive choice of words. I forgot the extent of nitpicking some will go to.)

Even 31 words, when you don't know what you're talking about, can be too many.

True, correcting your recollections would be impossible, as would trying to comprehend the bounds of your narcissism. (17)

Right. I'd filtered my interpret'n thru a coaching mindset, and hadn't been thinking about situations where they'd voluntary give up an eligible receiver.

Wording this is harder than it seemed at first -- and it didn't seem that easy even then! They want the long snapper to count as a wild card toward the total of 5 ineligible numbers, but on downs 1-3 will they allow a shift that leaves that wild card on the end of the line?

Robert in the Bronx