Numbering Exceptions

[Patton]

If more than one choice exists for a numbering exception(s), what determines the choice and can that subsequently change if a shift occurs?

Here's the situtation: K lines up in scrimmage kick formation on 4th and 2 at the 50. The following numbers are all on the LOS and 30 is the snapper:

88 | 18 | 72 | 30 | 57 | 63 | 45 | 80

Although 18 appears the most logical choice as the numbering exception, 45 could be as well. What if 88 shifts to the backfield, does 18 become eliglible since 45 could have been the originally intended numbering exception?

What if 80 shifted to the backfield, do we allow 45 to become eligible?

[HLin NC]

On 4th down or a try, under the numbering exception, once the player not numbered 50-79 takes the position of a player normally numbered 50-79 between the ends, he is ineligible, so even though they shift into a formation that makes them an end, they remain ineligible based on the initial positioning.
In your diagram, both 18 and 45 entered under the numbering exception . Your formation is perilously close to what the dreaded A-11 was trying to create. Under the rule, B and the officials are not tasked with determining who is eligible, they are both ineligible based on their initial positioning.

A player in the game under this exception must assume an initial position on his line of scrimmage between the ends and he remains an ineligible forward-pass receiver during that down unless the pass is touched by B (7-5-6b).

On downs 1-3, if A shifts or sets into a scrimmage kick formation, only the snapper may avail himself of the numbering exception and he must line up between the ends.

[Patton]

HL, I agree with you in principle, but what if 45 had been the TE all game and 80 just clearly lines up on the LOS by mistake. The K coach hollars at him to get off the line and 80 shifts back. They fake the punt and throw a pass to 45 for a 1st down.

Do we have the rule support in saying that 45 could have been a numbering exception; therefore, he remains ineligible after the shift...even though the K coach argues that 18 and 30 were his exceptions?

[bisonlj]

I consider 18, 30, and 45 all in under the numbering exception in this formation although technically only 2 of the 3 are replacing normally ineligible numbers. Patton, you bring up a good point but if A intended for A45 to be eligible, they should not have initially lined up A80 on the end. Depending on game situation or how long A80 was in that position I could see letting this go but by rule A45 is ineligible.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Patton

If more than one choice exists for a numbering exception(s), what determines the choice and can that subsequently change if a shift occurs?

Here's the situtation: K lines up in scrimmage kick formation on 4th and 2 at the 50. The following numbers are all on the LOS and 30 is the snapper:

88 | 18 | 72 | 30 | 57 | 63 | 45 | 80

Although 18 appears the most logical choice as the numbering exception, 45 could be as well. What if 88 shifts to the backfield, does 18 become eliglible since 45 could have been the originally intended numbering exception?

What if 80 shifted to the backfield, do we allow 45 to become eligible?

You don't have to choose, and there's nothing to confuse. EVERYONE between 88 and 80 is ineligible for the remainder of this play.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Patton

HL, I agree with you in principle, but what if 45 had been the TE all game and 80 just clearly lines up on the LOS by mistake. The K coach hollars at him to get off the line and 80 shifts back. They fake the punt and throw a pass to 45 for a 1st down.

Do we have the rule support in saying that 45 could have been a numbering exception; therefore, he remains ineligible after the shift...even though the K coach argues that 18 and 30 were his exceptions?

You don't pick and choose... the rule applies to ALL players that it applies to ... equally.

[jemiller]

IN SD we have 9 man football played by most of the state. There are no numbering requirements. As such, you can have this situation on every play, depending on who is switching on and off the line. We even have a center eligible option on occasion. FYI Jim

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Patton

HL, I agree with you in principle, but what if 45 had been the TE all game and 80 just clearly lines up on the LOS by mistake. The K coach hollars at him to get off the line and 80 shifts back. They fake the punt and throw a pass to 45 for a 1st down.

Do we have the rule support in saying that 45 could have been a numbering exception; therefore, he remains ineligible after the shift...even though the K coach argues that 18 and 30 were his exceptions?

Patton, you can come up with all the if's you would like but 18, 30, and 45 will remain ineligible throughout the down.