How do you identify eligible/ineligible recievers?

[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.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by jaybird

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.

I'm really at a loss, Jaybird, to figure out what your problem is. Adding one stupid statement after another isn't ever going to make what you offer in general, any less childish.

If you find no value in anything I offer, sorry about that, feel free to ignore me. If you have something of value to offer, which based on what you've offered thus far, is highly doubtful, enlighten me, but behaving like a little pre-teen girl who feels she's been somehow slighted, isn't going to impress anyone and really makes you look bad.

Do yourself a favor, because it really doesn't much matter to me, and get over whatever is bothering you.

[jaybird]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I'm really at a loss, Jaybird, to figure out what your problem is. Adding one stupid statement after another isn't ever going to make what you offer in general, any less childish.

If you find no value in anything I offer, sorry about that, feel free to ignore me. If you have something of value to offer, which based on what you've offered thus far, is highly doubtful, enlighten me, but behaving like a little pre-teen girl who feels she's been somehow slighted, isn't going to impress anyone and really makes you look bad.

Do yourself a favor, because it really doesn't much matter to me, and get over whatever is bothering you.

Interpretation/Clarification:
Little feller got his feelings hurt!

"Lighten up, Francis."

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by jaybird

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.

I don't care who you are, that's funny right there. Al has a problem of 1) admitting his mistakes and 2) an obsession with getting in the last word and 3) hurling insults as a defense mechanism. I simply pointed out that rules use dashes and case book references use dots. Everyone but him does it that way yet we're the ones who are wrong and he's right. Par for the course. Go ahead, Al, have the last word.

[ajmc]

I realize you're trying really hard to be clever, kdf5, but your your about as subtle as loud fart in church, and you're just not getting it done. Being right has nothing to do with being childish, and I'm afraid it's really obvious what your intent is, no matter how badly you try and camouflage is, and thus far you're a long way from clever.

Neither you, or jaybird, have yet been able to master the skill of being effectively sarcastic, and the unfortunate result of your efforts is pushing both of you more towards acting petty and sounding frustrated.

When you're under no illusion that you're perfect, acknowledging or admitting trivial mistakes is really no big deal. You just adjust, when it matters, and move on, it's really not that big a deal. How I wish mixing dots and dashes or using too many words were my biggest mistakes, or flaws.

For two guys who are so quick to point out the most trivial errors or misstatements of others, you are super sensitive about what amounts to insults, that you perceived are being "hurled" at you. Makes me wonder how you manage to survive on a sideline, that is if you've actually been on a sideline.

I learned long ago that, "getting in the last word" is usually greatly overrated and anyone can always have the last word, but doing so just doesn't mean a whole lot, especially when the subject doesn't amount to very much.

I suspect there might be a lot you two haven't been exposed to yet, to help you understand the difference between what might be important and what really doesn't matter, but as you mature your perception should expand, at least it usually does, and there's always hope that will be true for you.

Like most of your little barbs, these last few are taking this converstaion nowhere, about nothing. It's really up to you how long this conversation continues. You can keep trying to sound glib, which truly isn't working very well for you, or you could add something worthwhile, that pertains to the original question, or you could just conclude you have nothing of any value to offer. Trust me, you won't be the first to reach that conclusion.

[kdf5]

Am I right or am I right?

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by ajmc

How I wish mixing dots and dashes or using too many words were my biggest mistakes, or flaws.

OMG I don't even want to know what you have that is worse! (how's that for sarcasm?)

Originally Posted by ajmc

I learned long ago that, "getting in the last word" is usually greatly overrated and anyone can always have the last word, but doing so just doesn't mean a whole lot, especially when the subject doesn't amount to very much.

Now if you would ony use that knowledge.

Originally Posted by ajmc

or you could add something worthwhile, that pertains to the original question, or you could just conclude you have nothing of any value
to offer. Trust me, you won't be the first to reach that conclusion.

You may begin at any time.