Fed: shifts involving potential snapper

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

"Anyone not obviously a back or end"? So the burden is on players of A to show they're not interior line players?

Just trying to say that if all 7 players went into a 3-point stance (except the one over the ball) and then everyone shifted, technically nobody has established as a lineman because nobody has established themselves as a snapper. This goes along the line of the mantra of a team had better be 100% clean if they are going to try any trick plays. If a guy is lined up 5 yards behind the LOS in a 3-point stance and he shifts in this situation or a guy may or may not be on the line but he's an end if he is on the line and he shifts in this situation I'm not going to worry about it. But if someone is in a position where he would likely be a lineman if the player over the ball places his hands on the ball and he's in a 3-point stance then I'm going to be a lot more critical of his actions.

[HLin NC]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman
"Anyone not obviously a back or end"? So the burden is on players of A to show they're not interior line players?

So who else would the "burden" be on?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

So who else would the "burden" be on?

Nobody. You just look and see, no thumb on the scale.

This problem was made by the rules makers when they defined "snapper" analogously to "passer", "kicker", etc. but didn't realize that when they defined the position of players on the line as relative to the snapper in the 1940s, and had certain provisions relating to players on A's line before the ball is snapped, they needed another definition. NCAA's current definition of "snapper" does not have this problem...

2-27-8: The snapper is the player who snaps the ball. He is established as the snapper when he takes a position behind the ball and touches or simulates (hand[s] at or below his knees) touching the ball (Rule 7-1-3).

...but Fed's still does.