Oregon 2-pt play?
 

In the Stanford game, the Oregon long snapper snapped the ball sideways in the swinging gate formation, and then went out for a pass, caught the ball and scored. How can the snapper be an eligible receiver?

He was wearing an eligible number and was on the end of the line so under NCAA rules, he was eligible

The person that snaps the ball does not need to be an ineligible pass receiver.

It's just that it usually is.

As he would have been under NFHS rules as well.

Canadian Ruling
 

CANADIAN RULING:

Legal. :D

he wasn't standing with his shoulders perpendicular to the neutral zone, though, was he? (like the Maine / James Madison game)

No he was lined up legally

What you're really asking is, how can an end be the snapper? And the answer is that the rest of the OL doesn't have to be on both sides of the ball.

Thanks for the replies. I was looking for clarification that the player snapping the ball could indeed be an eligible receiver.

NCAA and NFHS have the same restrictions on eligibility. The player must be BOTH (1) a back or end, AND (2) wearing an eligible number (1-49, 80-99).

These are the ONLY conditions on eligibility. So if the snapper meets them, he's eligible.

Except that in NCAA, condition 1 is to be a back, an end, or a player in position to receive a hand-to-hand snap from between the snapper’s legs. That last position in Fed is defined as a back, but NCAA has not chosen to make that consolidation. NFL still hasn't extended eligibility to receive a forward pass to a player in that position.

I didn't see the play as I left the room after Oregon scored, but don't the coaches usually check with the refs before the game to discuss the legality of trick plays.

I think I know where some of this confusion comes from. It is the difference between eligible receiver and being able to legally receive a forward hand-off.
Please forgive me if I am slightly misquoting the rule, I have finished my football season and am already studying my baseball rules. But the rules for receiving a forward pass and a forward hand-off (without turning around and being at least a yard behind the line of scrimmage) are identical except that the snapper and those adjacent to the snapper on the line of scrimmage must do the "turn around thing".

Jasper

No, some people just think the snapper is ineligible. I don't think they are confusing it with the "fumblerooski" or forward handoff.

A provision on that subject distinguishing players in just those positions exists in some code (forgot whether Canadian or NFL), but not Fed or NCAA.

What confuses people is any play they haven't seen, or haven't seen in a long time. People hardly ever see such a hyperunbalanced line that an end is the snapper, so some come to think such unseen things are illegal. A coach at Huey's a few days ago posted that he thought in NCAA there had to be at least one line player on each side of the snapper. Maybe he got that from some version of 7- or 8-a-side touch football.

I used to hear such things as, "They used to drop kick until they made it illegal." Indeed Fed in recent times has used the rarity of a play as a reason for banning it. When they outlawed the return kick, the reason given was not safetly but that the officials would err on such a rare play. Wasn't that also the reason given for limiting forward passes to 1 per down (even though that makes it harder to administer now)? Funny, but they didn't seem to think that an important consider'n when they took that restriction off, but thinking was apparently different then. Maybe they thought it would be used more often, the way NCAA thought when they instituted the 2-pt. try that it would become the norm. That's why they moved the spot of the try from the 2 to the 3 yard line. By the time AFL got going, they had a couple of years of NCAA's experience and realized they needed no such discouragement, so they kept the spot of the try at the 2. Still most teams ostensibly kicking snapped from the 3 yard line, just to use the 10 yard stripe as a convenient marker to place the ball for the kick.

For NFHS, this exception to the numbering requirements as noted in 7-2-5(b) might be the only time a snapper would not be allowed to be an eligable receiver:

1. On first, second or third down, when A sets or shifts into a scrimmage-kick formation as in 2-14-2a, the snapper may be a player numbered 1 to 49 or 80 to 99. If Team A has the snapper in the game under this exception, Team A shall have at least four players wearing numbers 50-79 on its line of scrimmage. The snapper in the game under this exception must be between the ends and is an ineligible forwardpass receiver during that down unless the pass is touched by B (7-5-6b).

So, on fourth down or an extra point attempt the jersey numbering doesn't apply, per say? Clue me in as I'm clueless of the rule as I don't work football.

Just trying to learn a little more or the obscure rules and situations that apply.

Under NFHS rules:

Anytime that A has the normally required 5 players numbered 50-79 on the line, the snapper could be an end or an interior lineman. A is not using the numbering exception under that premise.

On downs 1-3, under the exception, the snapper can have an otherwise eligible number, but he must line up between the ends and there must be at least 4 other players numbered 50-79 on the line with him.

On 4th down and the try any eligible numbered player may take the position of a player normally numbered 50-79. If he/they does/do, he they remains ineligible under the exception.

The snapper is usually ineligible because he usually has a number between 50-79 and because he's not an end or back, either of which would render him ineligible.

I'm not sure why people confuse the numbering exception with the eligibility requirements. They are unrelated, other than the fact that a player in the game under the numbering exception is ineligible throughout the down.

ANY player who is eligible by number and position is eligible, including the snapper, on any scrimmage down including a try.

I think this rule change is what confuses people into thinking the snapper can never be eligible. We had a lot of discussion in our area about it this year and people now think the exception rule needs to be clarified. It hasn't changed in the 12 years I've been officiating but adding this new 1st-3rd down sitaution has confused what people clearly understood previously.