numbering exceptions
 

At what age level do you quit letting the coaches get away with telling you when there is a player who is going to be eligible for a pass even thou he's numbered illegally.

I.e. Coach tells you 56 is eligible and you then tell the defense instead of making him change a Jersey?, junior high, jv, peewee? what's you're opinion

When the league tells you. It should be a subject of preseason meetings.

Funny, I had a HS varsity player wearing number 56 tell me that tonight on a fourth down play where the team lined up for a field goal.

I didn't tell anyone anything.

We never allow this. Rec ball, middle school or JV, we always require the correct numbering. Teams have a jersey for every kid. Give eligible numbers to backs and receivers and 50-70 toi linemen. Tell coaches it has to be done and they'll do it.

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.

By association agreement with the local schools we do not enforce the numbering rule except at the varsity level. The main reason for this is that sub-varsity jerseys are normally old varsity jerseys. If a team has a player that is too big/small for the available jersey of the correct number we just allow them to wear what ever they can get their hands one rather then make them alter or purchase a new one.

We did get a team (varsity) that tried to use #93 as at left tackle, after getting called for a few penalties he disappeared (later to reappear as #79). It was mentioned during an early season meeting to watch for the team doing it again. The coach apparently gave the excuse that it was the only jersey that fit, but they were able to find a a jersey to put him in.

I was the umpire for the same team the next 2 weeks. The coach was warned during the pre-game meeting with the head coach. And again #93 again lines up at LG. The first time he was flagged and it was again fixed, and then the next week we mentioned it to the coach again in the pregame meeting and as soon as the meeting is over we see #93 going off to change into the #79 and they finally got it right without being penalized.

Jasper

Sorry but that's just an excuse by the schools not to put kids in the proper uniform number. The schools here are now better off than anywhere else, yet they still find a way to get kids in the proper number. It's an issue of having it as a priority.

I will not allow a 50-79 to ever be eligible. However, the other night, we allowed a 36 to be an interior lineman and count towards the 5 required numbers (NCAA) in a JV game. They only had about 16 players and we just dealt with it by letting the other coach know and telling 36 not to go out for a pass.

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.)

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.

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..

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.

Thanks

In our area we do not enforce the numbering exception below varsity level. It has never been a problem to be honest with you.

fify.

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.

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.

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.

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.