Duplicate Number Question

[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.

[Robert Goodman]

I don't even understand how 2 players with any numbers could be in the same position during the same down!

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

What makes a punter a punter?

Punting the ball makes him a punter, and affords him protections other players don't get.

For that matter what makes a quarterback a quarterback?

Receiving the snap; throwing the ball

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.

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.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.

[jTheUmp]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

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.

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.

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.

[parepat]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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?

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by parepat

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.

[parepat]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by parepat

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".