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.

[TXMike]

Aggie - Try to get to a TASO clinic this Summer. The rule change presentation should have the "unhighlighted" changes as well as the major ones. The clinicians have a standard powerpoint and as long as they use it, you should get them all.

This formation change is long overdue and will not only make for less BS fouls, but will make the flank's job easier.

[Da Official]

We used the new rules for our Spring Game in April or May and the 4 in the backfield rule made it MUCH, MUCH easier on the wing officials. I believe it was a very good decision to change the rule for the officials, for the offense, and as a result for the betterment of the game.

Peace...

[Theisey]

It was never hard before to determine if the formation was legal or not given the R/U consistenly provided us wingmen with the "I got 11 signal".

There still is one little fact that remains.. Team-A can play with 10 players on offense but except for when in scrimmage kick formation, your line still has to have 5 players numbered 50-79, else this is an illegal formation.

[KWH]

The way I read the rule, it would be legal for A to snap the ball only five players on the field just so long as those five players were numbered 50-79 and the snap touched the ground before being recovered and advanced by a player of A.

Can you tell me where I am wrong?

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by KWH

The way I read the rule, it would be legal for A to snap the ball only five players on the field just so long as those five players were numbered 50-79 and the snap touched the ground before being recovered and advanced by a player of A.

Can you tell me where I am wrong?

If A only has 5 players on the field then an illegal formation foul really isn't their biggest problem.

[KWH]

I get it!

However, the five player formation I described above would be legal.

[Reffing Rev.]

The old way: Kick formation 10 men. 6 on the line 4 in the backfield. 4 backfield and 2 on the end are ellgible. But because of the illegal formation foul its all a wash anyway.

The new way: kick formation on a kick down 10 men, 6 on the line 4 in the backfield. There are still 6 elliglible recievers but now no foul for formation...

So a new "trick play" could be to send out 10 on your kick team, send out an elligible 'tackle' and score with what used to be an illegal formation.

Am I understanding this correctly?


PS (Before anyone asks, I have no connection with the A-11 and vehemently opposed it from its conception to its bitter death)

[Theisey]

Your "trick" formation might look like this then, where 56 is the snapper:

()
24 44 56 53 80 34

33 40 14

2

It's been reported that "RR" says this is a legal SK formation and that his first bulletin will address this. I'll believe when I see it in print at the NCAA web site.

[TXMike]

How is this a trick formation? The defense can easily see who the eligibles are and can do whatever it is they need to do to deal with them. Does anyone truly think defenders and coaches are looking to see who the 5 ineligibles are?????? They only care about who IS eligible.

This formation is a legal SKF under the new rules and that will hopefully soon be made clear to everyone.

What could be an issue (although could be rendered moot with a further tweak next year) is the situation where Team A is in a SK situation and shifts players after the snapper is on the ball. In the diagram Tom posted, assume the snapper (#56) gets on the ball. Team A realizes they are short and send #45 into the game, lining up as the right end. As he is doing that #80 shifts such that he is now on the end of the left side of the line. The team sets for a second and ball is snapped. Many (including Rom Gilbert) say there is a foul now as 80 needed to stay covered up as he became a numbering exception once the snapper got on the ball. I disagree but I am wrong, by rule.