Duplicate Number Question

[Adam]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

How did the QB "sneak" onto the field if he was already on the field? Did he leave with the group, but then turn around and come back?

Pretty easy if he is the 2nd string QB and comes on with the punt team.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Adam

Pretty easy if he is the 2nd string QB and comes on with the punt team.

Two things... 1 - the OP said it was the starter.

2 - QB and Punter are two different positions ... the rule clearly says you can't have two guys at the same position with the same number during a game. If this 2nd guy actually punted ... THEN you have a broken rule.

Perhaps the rule should be written to also say that two players with the same number cannot take snaps from center during the game. But currently, it does not state this.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by parepat

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.

The play was run from the punt formation.

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Two things... 1 - the OP said it was the starter.

2 - QB and Punter are two different positions ... the rule clearly says you can't have two guys at the same position with the same number during a game. If this 2nd guy actually punted ... THEN you have a broken rule.

Perhaps the rule should be written to also say that two players with the same number cannot take snaps from center during the game. But currently, it does not state this.

1 - Right it was the starter. In this situation there was no substitution. Normally #18 - QB leaves and #18 - P comes on the field for 4th down punts but in this play #18 - QB stays on the field.

2 - Are they though under the rules? The rule has teeth in that the penalty is fairly severe, but it has no structure in that it's basically impossible to enforce since the rules don't define what positions are.

I also agree that it's basically unenforceable by the crew during the game due to the difficulty of confirming the separate identities particularly across long periods of time.

In the end I think it's a good idea turned into a badly written rule. I think this should be a violation but it's not entirely clear whether it is or not and even if it is, it would take an extraordinary effort by the crew to get it.

[MD Longhorn]

So ... given the situation you describe - and assuming you think some violation of this rule occurred --- exactly when do you penalize?

A18 QB's plays 1-3 of a series, then the other A18 comes on and punts. Penalty then? I suspect you're saying no. It's clear QB and punter are different positions.

Later, A18 QB's plays 1-3 of a series, then stays on the field for 4th down as several other substitutions occur, and then lines up a bit deeper but plays ... quarterback, like he did the rest of the game ... and throws a pass. Penalize then? Sounds like that's when you want the penalty to occur - but how is a QB staying on the field to play QB a violation of this rule?

Yes - the entire fault in all this is the poorly worded rule and the lack of definition or even caseplay to go by. But if the rule was worded correctly, I still don't see a foul here (perhaps if the rule was worded differently, the foul would actually be when the punter came out the first time and punted.)

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

So ... given the situation you describe - and assuming you think some violation of this rule occurred --- exactly when do you penalize?

A18 QB's plays 1-3 of a series, then the other A18 comes on and punts. Penalty then? I suspect you're saying no. It's clear QB and punter are different positions.

Later, A18 QB's plays 1-3 of a series, then stays on the field for 4th down as several other substitutions occur, and then lines up a bit deeper but plays ... quarterback, like he did the rest of the game ... and throws a pass. Penalize then? Sounds like that's when you want the penalty to occur - but how is a QB staying on the field to play QB a violation of this rule?

Yes - the entire fault in all this is the poorly worded rule and the lack of definition or even caseplay to go by. But if the rule was worded correctly, I still don't see a foul here (perhaps if the rule was worded differently, the foul would actually be when the punter came out the first time and punted.)

I'll remind you that I am not a football referee.

The prohibition on offense should be on eligible receivers wearing identical numbers during the game. I believe that would solve this problem (and the foul would be when the punter took the field in this revised instance).

Now, in this case I would stipulate the following assumptions:
1. The intent of the rule is to prevent misidentification between players.
2. Punter is a position which is occupied by the player who usually punts the ball in a scrimmage-kick formation.
3. Quarterback is a position which is occupied by the player who typically receives the snap in a non-scrimmage-kick formation.

If we take these stipulations as true (and you may well not), the rule is violated when #16-QB takes the position of punter.

In reality, you've convinced me this rule is all together unenforcable and needs completely rewritten.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I'll remind you that I am not a football referee.

The prohibition on offense should be on eligible receivers wearing identical numbers during the game. I believe that would solve this problem (and the foul would be when the punter took the field in this revised instance).

Now, in this case I would stipulate the following assumptions:
1. The intent of the rule is to prevent misidentification between players.
2. Punter is a position which is occupied by the player who usually punts the ball in a scrimmage-kick formation.
3. Quarterback is a position which is occupied by the player who typically receives the snap in a non-scrimmage-kick formation.

If we take these stipulations as true (and you may well not), the rule is violated when #16-QB takes the position of punter.

In reality, you've convinced me this rule is all together unenforcable and needs completely rewritten.

Again at the college level you might have multiple scholarship players that might have same numbers and this is not every going to be an issue. I also think the rule is so that you do not throw out the same CB that might have the same number as well. The offense needs to identify defensive players theoretically too.

As stated, I think this rule is more administrative in nature, meaning that if any penalty is going to come, it will come from a league or conference to enforce some sanction. Otherwise right now there does not seem to be a subscribed penalty to give if we notice two players are at the same position.

Peace

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

As stated, I think this rule is more administrative in nature, meaning that if any penalty is going to come, it will come from a league or conference to enforce some sanction. Otherwise right now there does not seem to be a subscribed penalty to give if we notice two players are at the same position.

Peace

Exactly this.. imho.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Again at the college level you might have multiple scholarship players that might have same numbers and this is not every going to be an issue. I also think the rule is so that you do not throw out the same CB that might have the same number as well. The offense needs to identify defensive players theoretically too.

As stated, I think this rule is more administrative in nature, meaning that if any penalty is going to come, it will come from a league or conference to enforce some sanction. Otherwise right now there does not seem to be a subscribed penalty to give if we notice two players are at the same position.

Peace

The subscribed penalty is on FR-21 of the 2013-2014 Football rulesbook

e. Two players playing the same position may not wear the same number during
the game.
PENALTY [d-e]—Live-ball foul, unsportsmanlike conduct. 15 yards from
the previous spot [S27]. Flagrant offenders shall be disqualified
[S47].

[Adam]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Two things... 1 - the OP said it was the starter.

I didn't see it.

Originally Posted by Eastshire

First, I'm not a football referee so just looking for some information here.

NCAA says "Two players playing the same position may not wear the same number during the game."

In the Cal/OSU game, the Cal QB and the Cal punter both are wearing 16. In the second quarter, the quarterback lines up as the punter in a kicking formation. Is this a violation of the rule? Why or why not?

Wait, here it is.

Originally Posted by Eastshire

1 - Right it was the starter. In this situation there was no substitution. Normally #18 - QB leaves and #18 - P comes on the field for 4th down punts but in this play #18 - QB stays on the field.

2 - Are they though under the rules? The rule has teeth in that the penalty is fairly severe, but it has no structure in that it's basically impossible to enforce since the rules don't define what positions are.

I also agree that it's basically unenforceable by the crew during the game due to the difficulty of confirming the separate identities particularly across long periods of time.

In the end I think it's a good idea turned into a badly written rule. I think this should be a violation but it's not entirely clear whether it is or not and even if it is, it would take an extraordinary effort by the crew to get it.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

In the end I think it's a good idea turned into a badly written rule.

They should just mandate unique numbers for different players in the game and allow 3 digit numbers. The 3rd digit should come after the decimal point.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

They should just mandate unique numbers for different players in the game and allow 3 digit numbers. The 3rd digit should come after the decimal point.

Actually, allowing 100-199 is not that bad an idea.

[jTheUmp]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

They should just mandate unique numbers for different players in the game and allow 3 digit numbers. The 3rd digit should come after the decimal point.

Or require unique numbers for each player and limit game-day rosters to 99 players... I mean, seriously, how often does anyone who is lower than 3rd string play in any particular game?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

Or require unique numbers for each player and limit game-day rosters to 99 players... I mean, seriously, how often does anyone who is lower than 3rd string play in any particular game?

Pick a blowout this weekend and look at the box scores. Especially when it's the home team doing the blowing out... You'd be surprised.

Also, it doesn't take 100 players to need to used duplicate numbers, given that specific positions are number restricted - it just takes too many at a particular position to cause an issue.

[jTheUmp]

On my college team, we had about 120-140 players each year, and we were quite good (D-III, 48-5 in my 4 years there), with a lot of blowout wins.

Still, it was very rare that anyone below the 3rd string would play on a given Saturday.

And the only number restrictions are 50-79 for interior offensive linemen, which gives you a maximum of 30 numbers that have to go to linemen (more than enough), and 68 numbers for everyone else. Of course, you see defensive linemen and linebackers wearing 50-79 numbers all the time, so you could easily do 20 O-linemen and 78 others, or whatever you wanted.

Retired numbers might cause problems. But that's not the NCAA's problem, in the strictest sense.

I wouldn't be against 3-digit numbers either... just saying that limiting to 99 individually-numbered players per game would be one way to get around this problem.