Experienced Backjudges?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The term Wide Receiver means they are wide on the formation. This is a pretty "vanilla" or common term. I have never heard this suggested as a "fan" term.

I really do not see why this is hard to understand. I do not think this is a roster issue, the guy was asking a rules question, not for us to classify who is on his or their roster. And if he did not understand he can ask for clarification.

Peace

I cannot ever remember using the term "wide receiver" on the field.

[mbyron]

The issue is certainly communication. We frequently must explain a ruling to a coach, and the question is whether to use his terminology or that of the rule book.

If you're asking a question about a rule on the forum and you sound like a coach, it comes to pretty much the same thing.

IMO, an official who answers a rules question without applying the proper terminology risks being misleading, wrong, or both because the rules are not couched in coach-speak.

If I'm talking to a coach, I might summarize the rule in rule-speak and then explain how it applies to the situation on the field: "That means that your players must ALL be set for 1 second before your WR goes in motion."

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I cannot ever remember using the term "wide receiver" on the field.

We are not on the field right now.

That being said I have used the term and other specific position terms sure to explain who was not lined up properly or who was covered or who might have been called for "holding" or any number of penalties.

I believe in using rulebook language too, but most people know what a wide receiver is, they might not know what an end is or better yet split end. And who cares anyway, because the terms are not contrary to what the rules are like someone referring to a cut block or a chop block and mean something completely different that what the rules say and means.

Peace

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

most people know what a wide receiver is

No the don't. Just yesterday on TV I heard the announcer say something like the team is setting their tight end up wide. The player who usually lined up at TE was lined up far to the side, in the backfield, and there was a split end out even wider than him. I've also seen this happen where it is a RB lined up wide. Isn't this what you are saying a WR is? Then why is this ESPN announcer calling him a TE? It's because he is referring to what his normal position is, what he is listed as on the roster.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by LDUB

No the don't. Just yesterday on TV I heard the announcer say something like the team is setting their tight end up wide. The player who usually lined up at TE was lined up far to the side, in the backfield, and there was a split end out even wider than him. I've also seen this happen where it is a RB lined up wide. Isn't this what you are saying a WR is? Then why is this ESPN announcer calling him a TE? It's because he is referring to what his normal position is, what he is listed as on the roster.

I guess I am missing your point. No one in this thread mentioned the TE and depending on where the TE is located in the formation, they might not be in the FBZ. If we use your logic only TEs can line up on the end and on the line of scrimmage. They often do not depending on the skill set of that player. But they still call them a TE.

The term was very generic and you have made a simple thing complicated more than it needed to be (and you are the only one making this point like your life depended on it). Gates for the SD Chargers is a TE and moves around all over any of their numerous formations. But if he lines up in a wide, he is restricted in how he blocks (and the reason they have a definition for a crack back block in the NFL). And the reason the question was asked so the person could get clarification to what a blocker wide of the formation could do. I will stick to the term even if you do not like it. Trust me, you will get over it.

Peace

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I guess I am missing your point ... If we use your logic only TEs can line up on the end and on the line of scrimmage. They often do not depending on the skill set of that player. But they still call them a TE.

That is the point. People call it a tight end even when he is lined up wide. People call it a wide receiver even when he is lined up tight.

You said "The term Wide Receiver means they are wide on the formation" It doesn't. Just as being a tight end does not mean they are tight on the formation.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by LDUB

That is the point. People call it a tight end even when he is lined up wide. People call it a wide receiver even when he is lined up tight.

You said "The term Wide Receiver means they are wide on the formation" It doesn't. Just as being a tight end does not mean they are tight on the formation.

LDUB,

I will still use the terms and I have never had anyone not understand what I was talking about except with you or on this website. I have never had officials not understand the term or get confused until now. And the fact that someone online has a problem with it tells me a lot honestly after 14 years of officiating. Do what works for you; I will certainly do the same.

What we call the position really does not matter. If you are not in the FBZ and on the line (at the snap), you cannot block below the waist anyway. It is that simple. What we call the position is irrelevant. But I have never had anyone ever think a wide receiver was someone as someone clearly on the line and in the FBZ. First time for everything I guess.

Peace