Duplicate Number Question

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bwburke94

I'd likely call this a violation of the rule. I don't have the exact text of the rule right now so I don't know what the enforcement would be.

Do you mean you'd call the OP a violation? You shouldn't, it's not.

[parepat]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Do you mean you'd call the OP a violation? You shouldn't, it's not.

Did 2 # 16's lineup in the same position (punter). Yes=foul.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by parepat

Did 2 # 16's lineup in the same position (punter). Yes=foul.

Again ... where they start on the field, with a few exceptions, does not necessarily define their position... and in this particular case, one is a punter, the other a quarterback. They are not both punters.

[parepat]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Again ... where they start on the field, with a few exceptions, does not necessarily define their position... and in this particular case, one is a punter, the other a quarterback. They are not both punters.

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?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by parepat

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?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.