Duplicate Number Question

[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].

[HLin NC]

Coaches response: "But he's NOT my punter, he's my quarterback. We're in shotgun!"/ "He's not my quarterback, he's my punter" "can't you see we're in scrimmage kick formation?!" "$#@^%$, I'm calling the conference office tonight!"