How do you identify eligible/ineligible recievers?

[Brandon Kincer]

So just to be sure we are on the same page.......The two players on the ends of the line ARE eligible provided they are wearing an eligible number, Everyone in the backfield IS eligible provided they are wearing a eligible number, and everyone else is INELIGIBLE. (Assuming that its not forth down)

Am I Correct?

If I am, If one of the two ends or both of the two ends is off the line of scrimmage are they still eligible?

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Brandon Kincer

So just to be sure we are on the same page.......The two players on the ends of the line ARE eligible provided they are wearing an eligible number, Everyone in the backfield IS eligible provided they are wearing a eligible number, and everyone else is INELIGIBLE. (Assuming that its not forth down)

First down, fourth down, it doesn't matter. A player's eligibility is determined my number and position. The number of the down has no relevance.

If I am, If one of the two ends or both of the two ends is off the line of scrimmage are they still eligible?

If a player is not on the line of scrimmage he can not be an end.

[jaybird]

Originally Posted by waltjp

If a player is not on the line of scrimmage he can not be an end.

Direct and to the point.

[Brandon Kincer]

ok I think im starting to get it. Thank you guys for clarifying what an "End" is. Now that its clear that the two ends are eligible by position, is EVERYONE who is a back eligible by position as well?

Also, If I see an ineligible downfield on pass where would I throw the flag and how would it be enforced? and If that ineligible reciever caught the pass does the ineligible downfield on pass penalty convert to illegal touching or is the opposing team givin the option?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Brandon Kincer

Also, If I see an ineligible downfield on pass where would I throw the flag and how would it be enforced? and If that ineligible reciever caught the pass does the ineligible downfield on pass penalty convert to illegal touching or is the opposing team givin the option?

The frequency of ineligibles downfield is largely related to the skill level of the players. When you do see an ineligible player downfield you want to consider where he is, what he's doing and how and why he may be there.

The first thing you want to be sure of, is that the pass is thrown and actually crosses the LOS. If a lineman has just wandered too far and is not affecting the play or actively blocking you may decide to simply mention something to him. If he is involving himself as a blocker, and he was down field BEFORE the pass was thrown, beyond the NZ, a penalty is likely in order.

Yes Illegal touching (formerly OPI) would be the second penalty he has commited. Illegal touching is a more severe penalty, adding Loss of down, to the 5 yd distance penalty for either foul, so it, alone, would be the infraction you report.

When you observe a player with an eligible # out flanked by another player with an eligible #, the inside player bears watching. As often as not, there's a good chance that the outside player lined up wrong, rendering the inside player INeligible, which the inside player may well not realize. (Make a mental note of the outside player's # as you may be asked for it).

If the inside player goes downfield for a pass, he's an ineligible downfield, and if he touches the ball it's Illegal touching. All the while he (and his coach) may have intended him to be eligible and only the action of his teammate took that status away from him, which neither player or coach may be totally unaware of.

Being prepared to inform the referee you have a foul against ineliible # XX, because he was covred by # YY can eliminate a lot of questioning.

If there is no forward pass, there's no foul and both offensive players are entitled to go downfield.

[With_Two_Flakes]

Originally Posted by Brandon Kincer

Also, If I see an ineligible downfield on pass where would I throw the flag and how would it be enforced?

Since the enforcement for ineleigible downfield is a previous spot foul, there is no particular need to throw your flag to any particular spot.

But on the general subject of getting flags to a spot on the field....
I dont want my own newer guys wasting time by thinking about whether a particular foul requires a spot or not, so I try to encourage officials to always throw the flag toward the spot of the foul. Of course by that I mean toward the yard line of the foul first and foremost. Left or right across the field is not so important - having that too is a bonus. Of course it helps to sell the call when a flag is in the general area of the foul.
I've seen officials spend all their energy in throwing a flag 25 yds across the field and then have to go move it because it wasn't on the correct yardline. Common sense says aim for the correct yardline.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Brandon Kincer

If one of the two ends or both of the two ends is off the line of scrimmage are they still eligible?

One of the most common points of confusion relating to understanding football rules is getting tied up in the "language" of football.

There are hundreds of terms or descriptions that capably and effectively describe very specific situations that simply cannot, or at the least should not, be used to describe other situations.

A commonly misused term is "end". Every line, including those in football has two ends, one on one side, one on the other. There are two inseparable requirements for any player, who is on the line of scrimmage to be eligible to catch a forward pass; he has to be standing on the outside edge, the "end" of either side of the line and wear a number between 1-49 or 80-99.

A "Back", basically, is anyone not on the line and behind it (Actual definition is NF: 2.32.3). If that back also wants to be eligible to catch a forward pass, he too, has to be wearing a number between 1-49 or 80-99.

If a player is wearing an eligible number, and is anywhere on the LOS, but either end, he's not eligible by position. If #88 lines up on one end, and #22 shifts to a position wider towards the sideline, and makes the mistake of moving up to the LOS, he's still an eligible receiver but he's taken eligibility away from #88, who is no longer on the end of the line.

Now, as often happens, when #22 steps up to the line, #88 takes a full step back, establishing himself as a "back", and he retains his pass catching eligibility.

Everyone harps on reading Rule 2, becuase it's so important to know and understand what the "official" definitions actually are. Thery are the only definitions that count and may be ever so slightly different than definitions all sorts of people use to try and describe things.

There is simply no getting around knowing and understanding Rule 2.

[jaybird]

Originally Posted by ajmc

One of the most common points of confusion relating to understanding football rules is getting tied up in the "language" of football.

There are hundreds of terms or descriptions that capably and effectively describe very specific situations that simply cannot, or at the least should not, be used to describe other situations.

A commonly misused term is "end". Every line, including those in football has two ends, one on one side, one on the other. There are two inseparable requirements for any player, who is on the line of scrimmage to be eligible to catch a forward pass; he has to be standing on the outside edge, the "end" of either side of the line and wear a number between 1-49 or 80-99.

A "Back", basically, is anyone not on the line and behind it (Actual definition is NF: 2.32.3). If that back also wants to be eligible to catch a forward pass, he too, has to be wearing a number between 1-49 or 80-99.

If a player is wearing an eligible number, and is anywhere on the LOS, but either end, he's not eligible by position. If #88 lines up on one end, and #22 shifts to a position wider towards the sideline, and makes the mistake of moving up to the LOS, he's still an eligible receiver but he's taken eligibility away from #88, who is no longer on the end of the line.

Now, as often happens, when #22 steps up to the line, #88 takes a full step back, establishing himself as a "back", and he retains his pass catching eligibility.

Everyone harps on reading Rule 2, becuase it's so important to know and understand what the "official" definitions actually are. Thery are the only definitions that count and may be ever so slightly different than definitions all sorts of people use to try and describe things.

There is simply no getting around knowing and understanding Rule 2.

Same thing that Walt said only with 324 words instead of 16.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by jaybird

Same thing that Walt said only with 324 words instead of 16.

Have you ever considered talking to a professional, Jaybird, related to your compulsion about counting words, or are you just trying to mimmick a gnat?

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by ajmc

A "Back", basically, is anyone not on the line and behind it (Actual definition is NF: 2.32.3).

Brandon: Rules are designated with a dash as in 2-32-2. What ajmc quoted was from the Case Book. Case book plays contain periods.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by kdf5

Brandon: Rules are designated with a dash as in 2-32-2. What ajmc quoted was from the Case Book. Case book plays contain periods.

Actually it's just a habit of mine, kdf5, that I use periods instead of dashes when referencing rules. When I reference a Case Book play, I usually state that it's a Case Book reference.

I figured if anyone was interested enough to check the reference, they wouldn't have a problem. If you had bothered to look, you'd know there isn't a 2.32.3 reference in the Case Book, and if you were familiar with the Rule book, you'd know the definitions, themselves, are really only spelled out in the Rule book.

Forgive me if I caused you any undue confusion, if you don't understand something I've posted, ask for clarification, I'll do my best to help you out. If you're going to try and put words in my mouth, be kind enough to reference the correct reference number, dots and dashes aside, the actual reference number is what really matters.

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Actually it's just a habit of mine, kdf5, that I use periods instead of dashes when referencing rules. When I reference a Case Book play, I usually state that it's a Case Book reference.

I figured if anyone was interested enough to check the reference, they wouldn't have a problem. If you had bothered to look, you'd know there isn't a 2.32.3 reference in the Case Book, and if you were familiar with the Rule book, you'd know the definitions, themselves, are really only spelled out in the Rule book.

Forgive me if I caused you any undue confusion, if you don't understand something I've posted, ask for clarification, I'll do my best to help you out. If you're going to try and put words in my mouth, be kind enough to reference the correct reference number, dots and dashes aside, the actual reference number is what really matters.

I didn't bother to look because I didn't care. I was simply letting him know the difference. He seems like a rookie and is asking some great questions on here and I simply distinguished one from the other. Your habit shouldn't get him confused.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by kdf5

I didn't bother to look because I didn't care. I was simply letting him know the difference. He seems like a rookie and is asking some great questions on here and I simply distinguished one from the other. Your habit shouldn't get him confused.

It's really hard to imagine that anyone who is interested in the rules of football, or explaining them or understanding them would be confused because of dots and ashes?

[waltjp]

When the accepted conventions among officials is to use dashes for rule references and dots for case plays then yes, your methodology is confusing.

[jaybird]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Actually it's just a habit of mine, kdf5, that I use periods instead of dashes when referencing rules. When I reference a Case Book play, I usually state that it's a Case Book reference.

I figured if anyone was interested enough to check the reference, they wouldn't have a problem. If you had bothered to look, you'd know there isn't a 2.32.3 reference in the Case Book, and if you were familiar with the Rule book, you'd know the definitions, themselves, are really only spelled out in the Rule book.

Forgive me if I caused you any undue confusion, if you don't understand something I've posted, ask for clarification, I'll do my best to help you out. If you're going to try and put words in my mouth, be kind enough to reference the correct reference number, dots and dashes aside, the actual reference number is what really matters.

Interpretation/clarification:
kdf5,
This is Al's long winded version of trying to say that he made a mistake. He is apologizing and begging your forgiveness.