NCAA Rule change on linemen

[Texas Aggie]

When the official changes came out, I skimmed them, but now I'm finding out that there are what I consider major rule changes that weren't highlighted in the book and not at all talked about. One is going to be very problematic: the change from the required 7 men on the line to the now required 4 in the backfield. The new rule reads:

All players must be either on their scrimmage line or legally
positioned as a back. At least five players wearing jerseys numbered
50 through 79 must be legally on their scrimmage line, and no more
than four players may be in the backfield.

So now it appears that there is no longer a requirement of 7 on the line. A team can have 10 or even 9 players and as long as only 4 are in the backfield, they are legal. This is a huge fundamental change from football as I've always known it, and the wording is dangerously short sighted.

I've worked many games where a passing team will, either through mistake or indifference, have 8 or even 9 guys on the line on a running play. Before, there was never anything illegal about that, but now there is. But why? Does it confuse the defense? NO, and in fact, it tips off a smart defense (or coach) to the run since he now knows there are only a couple of eligible receivers rather than 3 or 4.

It is certainly easier to count the players when you only have to account for 4, and now, who really cares if there are 11 on the field or not? But I think it does a disservice to the game and this administrative change is something the committee should have not only highlighted, but listed as a major rules change.

[jaybird]

..have 8 or even 9 guys on the line on a running play. Before, there was never anything illegal about that, but now there is.

Why would this now be illegal?

[Robert Goodman]

Is Texas Aggie confusing "only" with "at least" or "exactly"?

[Texas Aggie]

Jayb: you're right. I misread the "no more than." However, 5 on the line and 4 in the backfield (or even 1 in the backfield) is now a legal formation and it never has been. Or at least, hasn't been in a long, long time. I don't understand the impetus for the change when it wasn't necessary. Further, it should have been given more discussion as a change.

Thanks for catching my mistake, though.

[FBullock]

If a team has 10, they don't want a bunch of cheap fouls. All the other requirements still apply.

[JasonTX]

As for the backfield players, nothing really changed there. In the past a team couldn't play with more than 4 in the backfield because they were required to have at least 7 on the line. Well oftentimes, as FBullock pointed out, teams would get caught in shuffling players in and out and only had 10 players on the field. They'd line up with 6 on the line and 4 in the backfield and then get tagged with a flag for the illegal formation. By having 1 less player that didn't seem fair since they haven't gained any advantage.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Jayb: you're right. I misread the "no more than." However, 5 on the line and 4 in the backfield (or even 1 in the backfield) is now a legal formation and it never has been. Or at least, hasn't been in a long, long time. I don't understand the impetus for the change when it wasn't necessary.

I think it's long overdue. I don't know why the rule was ever written the way it has been instead of this new way to begin with. In Canadian football the requirement was also written as a minimum number on the line, but with an additional statement that if team A is short players that minimum is adjusted downward commensurately.

Robert