The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Sat Sep 15, 2012, 02:38pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich View Post
Same here. Never have this problem. Except once where my crew was working a first round state game and the visiting team sent 93 out to play left guard with only 4 50-79s in the game. Flag. Another play, another flag.

Finally I had the linesman tell the coach he'd better call a timeout so I could explain to him why this was happening. It was a surreal experience, that's for sure.

IMHO it never should have gotten to the second flag without the coach being informed by the wing as to why the penalty was assessed. Granted, by the time a team reaches the state playoffs they should know better but even still we do everything possible to prevent issues before they occur.
__________________
Yo Lama....How about a little somethin' for the effort...
--Carl Spackler
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sat Sep 15, 2012, 10:24pm
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by MN BB Ref View Post
IMHO it never should have gotten to the second flag without the coach being informed by the wing as to why the penalty was assessed. Granted, by the time a team reaches the state playoffs they should know better but even still we do everything possible to prevent issues before they occur.
You're going to take time after the first play? In a playoff game? BTW, the wing told the head coach what the foul was, it was his choice not to fix the problem.

(Edited to add: Looks like that's exactly what was said. We agree. The head coach was fairly thick, combined with the fact that I believe the other crews he had in his previous 9 games looked the other way at the requirement. I really had no choice but to throw a flag and when he didn't correct it after being told about it on the second play, I decided to shut it down and talk with the coach myself.)
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Sun Sep 16, 2012, 12:49am
In Time Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,263
refresh our memory!

Wasn't there a high school coach a few years back touting a new offense? In his system, the QB was 7 yards back, and by rule this is a punt formation. I believe from a punt formation the eligible numbers rules isn't enforced in the same way. He would send in players on a constant basis with with more than 5 players that weren't numbered 50 thru 70.

The players would shift from the line to a yard back (or more I guess), or shift from a back position to be on the LOS. As long as they had 4 in the backfield. Does anybody recall the exact specifics of this, or what was done about it in the form of a rule change.

I don't recall what actually the coach was doing, but this is as close as I can remember. Perhaps some of you guys know what I'm talking about. Just something I had on my mind reading the thread. I have noticed some teams really spreading the formation on a punting down now.
__________________
I have nipples, Greg. Can you milk me?
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Sun Sep 16, 2012, 06:02am
Chain of Fools
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,648
Steven,

You have recited what we call in the business "The Offense That Shall Be Named" but what he called The A11 offense in which all offensive players were allegedly eligible based on formation and numbering attempting to skirt the scrimmage kick formation exception.

The NFHS legislated it out..
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:48pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 785
Are you guys talking about coaches wanting #XX to be eligible the entire game, or just for one play at a time?

The referee declared Bengals #74 eligible about half a dozen times today.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Sun Sep 16, 2012, 10:01pm
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Altor View Post
Are you guys talking about coaches wanting #XX to be eligible the entire game, or just for one play at a time?

The referee declared Bengals #74 eligible about half a dozen times today.
That's fine in the NFL. It's not fine at levels below that.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 17, 2012, 01:34am
In Time Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by HLin NC View Post
Steven,

You have recited what we call in the business "The Offense That Shall Be Named" but what he called The A11 offense in which all offensive players were allegedly eligible based on formation and numbering attempting to skirt the scrimmage kick formation exception.

The NFHS legislated it out..
Thanks
__________________
I have nipples, Greg. Can you milk me?
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 17, 2012, 01:49pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 508
In our area we do not enforce the numbering exception below varsity level. It has never been a problem to be honest with you.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 17, 2012, 02:14pm
CT1 CT1 is offline
Official & ***** Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by hlin nc View Post
steven,

you have recited what we call in the business "the offense that shall be nameless" but what he called the a11 offense in which all offensive players were allegedly eligible based on formation and numbering attempting to skirt the scrimmage kick formation exception.

The nfhs legislated it out..
fify.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 17, 2012, 04:43pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Tyler View Post
Wasn't there a high school coach a few years back touting a new offense?
If you wonder HOW the NFHS legislated it out, take a look in the rules book at 7-2-5b Exceptions. It is a bizarre kluge of rules designed specifically to eliminate that offensive scheme. I was in Central New York near Utica when it was being "developed". The consensus there among the veterans, especially the umpires and back judges, was that communicating and determining who would be an eligible receiver would be a nightmare.

The purpose for the numbering exception was to allow different squads from the normal linemen to take the field during scrimmage kick downs, and the evil offense took advantage of a loophole (even bragged about it) to do something different.

These combined to ensure NFHS eliminated it, I think that happened in 2009.

When I was playing in 7th and 8th grade, we only had between 13 and 19 players on my team depending on how much we had been affected by grades. (2 D's or 1 F and you were pulled from the team.) Two of us would change jerseys FREQENTLY on the sideline depending on what was going on. I was either 79 or 49, and I can't remember my teammate's two numbers, I think 78 and 88. The coach would notify the WH and the opposing coaches every week. These were generally friendly games, anyways--same three officials every week and always played on the same field on Saturday mornings.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 17, 2012, 07:43pm
Chain of Fools
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,648
Quote:
"the offense that shall be nameless"

Quote:
fify.
Actually you didn't. I left out the "Not" in "Shall Not Be Named". Thanks anyway.

We do not allow "numbering exceptions" past youth league.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 18, 2012, 08:18am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,915
Quote:
Originally Posted by jchamp View Post
If you wonder HOW the NFHS legislated it out, take a look in the rules book at 7-2-5b Exceptions. It is a bizarre kluge of rules designed specifically to eliminate that offensive scheme....

The purpose for the numbering exception was to allow different squads from the normal linemen to take the field during scrimmage kick downs,
The bizarre kludge resulted because that exception was retained, so it's a complicated exception to the exception. Fed could instead have eliminated the exception entirely, or eliminated eligible receiver numbering entirely, and either would've given a lot simpler result. The difficulty in administering the A-11 was because of the interaction of the already somewhat complicated exception with the eligible receiver numbering rules. If they'd just eliminated the scrimmage kick exception, they could've gone back to the days of pullover jerseys; or they could've eliminated eligible receiver numbering, and gone back to the days of tackle eligible etc. plays.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 18, 2012, 09:54pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 110
We have a lot of schools hurting for money in inner-city schools. Sometimes you have a kid who is playing varsity as a 50-79 player but JV as a qb or wide receiver. It is understood and widley accepted here that the position a player lines up in determines his eligibility. This is JV and below and usually in a financially challenged area.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Numbering Exceptions Patton Football 7 Sun Oct 24, 2010 03:17pm
Illegal Numbering Tom Hinrichs Football 3 Mon Nov 10, 2008 02:29pm
numbering FATUMP Football 8 Tue Nov 14, 2006 01:25pm
numbering ref13 Football 9 Wed Oct 12, 2005 12:44pm
Louisiana Exceptions wadep1965 Basketball 2 Sun Jan 06, 2002 02:16am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:03pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1