The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 16, 2013, 02:38pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 16, 2013, 02:54pm
Official Forum Member
 
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
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 16, 2013, 03:18pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
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
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 16, 2013, 03:49pm
Official Forum Member
 
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
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 16, 2013, 09:30pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,920
I don't even understand how 2 players with any numbers could be in the same position during the same down!
Reply With Quote
  #6 (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
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 17, 2013, 10:03am
Official Forum Member
 
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
  #8 (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
  #9 (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
  #10 (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
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 17, 2013, 10:25am
Official Forum Member
 
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
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 07:53am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1