The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 16, 2013, 02:54pm
Moderator M-800
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by parepat View Post
The rule says "during the game". IMO this is clearly a foul and falls squarely within the letter and intent of the rule. The more fuzzy aspects of it are:
#2 plays split end. The other #2 later comes in and plays the slot. Now what?
How is quoting 3 words of the rule helpful? The rule also says AT THE SAME POSITION.

I grant that there's some fuzziness regarding "slot", "Split end" etc - did they mean those to be the same? I don't know.

But QB is one of the few positions specifically mentioned in the rules, and certain rules pertain only to that position. Punter is also one of the few mentioned, and has different rules. QB and Punter are not the same thing. Even absent those specialized rules, I really don't think any sane person would argue that they were the same, and I don't think YOU think they are the same ... so why are you trying to argue that this rule "two players with the same number playing the same position during the game" would apply here?
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 16, 2013, 03:18pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
How is quoting 3 words of the rule helpful? The rule also says AT THE SAME POSITION.

I grant that there's some fuzziness regarding "slot", "Split end" etc - did they mean those to be the same? I don't know.

But QB is one of the few positions specifically mentioned in the rules, and certain rules pertain only to that position. Punter is also one of the few mentioned, and has different rules. QB and Punter are not the same thing. Even absent those specialized rules, I really don't think any sane person would argue that they were the same, and I don't think YOU think they are the same ... so why are you trying to argue that this rule "two players with the same number playing the same position during the game" would apply here?
I don't know whether it applies, but it sure seems this team took advantage of a loophole (or just squeezed it through).
Seems to me it goes against the intent, trying to sneak a player in. If R is expected punter #18, and QB # 18 comes in and lines up at punter instead.... How is that not the point of the rule?
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 16, 2013, 03:49pm
Moderator M-800
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
I don't know whether it applies, but it sure seems this team took advantage of a loophole (or just squeezed it through).
Seems to me it goes against the intent, trying to sneak a player in. If R is expected punter #18, and QB # 18 comes in and lines up at punter instead.... How is that not the point of the rule?
It may very well be the point of the rule. I don't disagree.

But it's not the rule. Absent a rewrite, a clarification, or at least a play like this in the monthly update, we simply can't change the rule to include the OP.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 16, 2013, 09:30pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,733
I don't even understand how 2 players with any numbers could be in the same position during the same down!
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 17, 2013, 08:57am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman View Post
I don't even understand how 2 players with any numbers could be in the same position during the same down!
Read the rule. The rule says no players with the same number in the same position during the game.


@MD Longhorn
What makes a punter a punter? For that matter what makes a quarterback a quarterback? I don't see a definition for either in the rulesbook.

If this isn't what's covered by the rule, can you give an example of what is covered by the rule and how it differs from this situation?
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 17, 2013, 09:08am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
It may very well be the point of the rule. I don't disagree.

But it's not the rule. Absent a rewrite, a clarification, or at least a play like this in the monthly update, we simply can't change the rule to include the OP.
Maybe I misunderstand the facts here. Cal's punter #18 punts during the game. Later, Cal's QB (also #18) comes in and lines up as the punter did and then either (a) runs a play from punt formation or (b) shifts back into a QB position and runs a play.

Is this right?
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 17, 2013, 09:25am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by parepat View Post
Maybe I misunderstand the facts here. Cal's punter #18 punts during the game. Later, Cal's QB (also #18) comes in and lines up as the punter did and then either (a) runs a play from punt formation or (b) shifts back into a QB position and runs a play.

Is this right?
The numbers are 16 and only (a) occurs but correct in all other aspects.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 17, 2013, 10:03am
Moderator M-800
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire View Post
What makes a punter a punter?
Punting the ball makes him a punter, and affords him protections other players don't get.
Quote:
For that matter what makes a quarterback a quarterback?
Receiving the snap; throwing the ball
Quote:
I don't see a definition for either in the rulesbook.
There's no question that the NCAA rule is problematical in that it prohibits something based on position ... and then does not define the position. This is part of why I truly think this is the kind of rule that would be punished after the fact by the NCAA, and not during a game.

Quote:
If this isn't what's covered by the rule, can you give an example of what is covered by the rule and how it differs from this situation?
I believe the rule is intended to keep teams from creating statistical nightmares for the press or press box, and to prevent (possibly) having an ejection served by someone other than the player ejected. And not really for US to enforce. This, of course, is only my opinion.

But I don't believe the rulesmakers ever expected the officials to have to deal with this on the field.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 17, 2013, 10:10am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire View Post
The numbers are 16 and only (a) occurs but correct in all other aspects.
Did the QB run play from punt formation or shift to a conventional formation? Doesn't really matter to me. I believe it is a foul either way, but trying to get the facts straight.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 17, 2013, 10:25am
Moderator M-800
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by parepat View Post
Maybe I misunderstand the facts here. Cal's punter #18 punts during the game. Later, Cal's QB (also #18) comes in and lines up as the punter did and then either (a) runs a play from punt formation or (b) shifts back into a QB position and runs a play.

Is this right?
B did not happen. But while I agree A might have been the intent of the rule, the rulesmakers didn't give us the teeth to use this rule to apply here - at least not without an official interpretation or "case play".
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 17, 2013, 11:01am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 923
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
I believe the rule is intended to keep teams from creating statistical nightmares for the press or press box, and to prevent (possibly) having an ejection served by someone other than the player ejected. And not really for US to enforce. This, of course, is only my opinion.

But I don't believe the rulesmakers ever expected the officials to have to deal with this on the field.
Rogers talked about this rule at a clinic I attended and IIRC the primary purpose of the rule was to not use multiple players with the same number in a deceptive manner. They intentionally left the wording somewhat vague so it didn't paint us into a corner for enforcement. It's mostly meant for key skill positions. They aren't worried about a LG at number 65 and later bringing in another #65 to play LT (not at the same time).

I'm thinking it's OK to have #18 as a QB and #18 as a punter, but if you bring in the QB version as the punter and then run a fake, you may have a problem. Statistics may have been a secondary consideration (and I know a statistician who likes the rule for that reason), but it wasn't primary.

If you feel a team is using different players with the same number in a deceptive manner, then invoke this rule. Otherwise don't worry about it.
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 17, 2013, 12:11pm
TODO: creative title here
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by bisonlj View Post
Rogers talked about this rule at a clinic I attended and IIRC the primary purpose of the rule was to not use multiple players with the same number in a deceptive manner. They intentionally left the wording somewhat vague so it didn't paint us into a corner for enforcement. It's mostly meant for key skill positions. They aren't worried about a LG at number 65 and later bringing in another #65 to play LT (not at the same time).
Were you at Honig's clinic this spring? I was there also... if we both end up there next year we should get together for a beer or two.

Quote:
I'm thinking it's OK to have #18 as a QB and #18 as a punter, but if you bring in the QB version as the punter and then run a fake, you may have a problem.
But a punter isn't a punter until he actually punts the ball. Prior to that, he's just a runner. Likewise, the quarterback is just a runner until he actually throws a pass.

Quote:
If you feel a team is using different players with the same number in a deceptive manner, then invoke this rule. Otherwise don't worry about it.
Agreed.
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 17, 2013, 02:06pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by jTheUmp View Post
Were you at Honig's clinic this spring? I was there also... if we both end up there next year we should get together for a beer or two.


But a punter isn't a punter until he actually punts the ball. Prior to that, he's just a runner. Likewise, the quarterback is just a runner until he actually throws a pass.


Agreed.
So.... in this situation having the QB and Punter wear the same number and then have said QB line up as a punter and run the play seems like a deceptive move to me. I have a foul. Do you?
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 17, 2013, 02:29pm
TODO: creative title here
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by parepat View Post
So.... in this situation having the QB and Punter wear the same number and then have said QB line up as a punter and run the play seems like a deceptive move to me. I have a foul. Do you?
Unless I can be ABSOLUTELY sure that the QB #16 and Punter #16 are not the same person, no, I do not have a foul.

In high school I played against a team whose quarterback was also their punter. Why can't a player, if appropriately skilled, do both?
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 17, 2013, 02:41pm
Moderator M-800
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by jTheUmp View Post
Unless I can be ABSOLUTELY sure that the QB #16 and Punter #16 are not the same person, no, I do not have a foul.

In high school I played against a team whose quarterback was also their punter. Why can't a player, if appropriately skilled, do both?
Danny White did this in the pros.

I'm really surprised this has gotten as much play as it has. I don't even see most players' faces, much less memorize them and compare. I can see possibly catching this if it happened to be a captain - we see their faces early, and interact with them throughout the game. But even in an NCAA game, I don't see this getting noticed by the on-field officials.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

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
Illegal number and penalty question? JRutledge Basketball 15 Wed Feb 27, 2013 05:40pm
Duplicate numbers ?? Remington Basketball 10 Sat Feb 12, 2011 11:53am
Illegal number Question BigGref Football 9 Fri Sep 02, 2005 02:50pm
Duplicate Number bard Basketball 25 Sat Dec 07, 2002 09:32am
Duplicate numbers Hawks Coach Basketball 11 Fri Jan 05, 2001 09:46am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:43pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1