Duplicate Number Question
 

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?

To make a long story short, it is not illegal to have multiple players with the same number. Actually it would be almost impossible to field some teams if you could not duplicate numbers. So the NCAA allows (as well as High School) duplicate numbers as long as they are not on the field at the same time. So a punter and a quarterback theoretically are not going to be on the field at the same time. So in your example it would not be illegal to do what you witnessed.

Peace

It's "the same down", not "the same position". They'd have to be on the field during the same live ball for it to be a violation.

New NCAA rule this year added so players playing the same position can't wear the same number. So you can't have 2 different QBs wearing #16. The intent of the rule is not to prevent two punters or two guards or two long snappers. I believe the situation in the original post would not be an issue.

It is a new rule. However, I would have to think the intention is to specifically prevent having two punters wearing the same number.

It certainly gave Cal an advantage in that game as they were able to sneak their QB into a punting formation and pulled off a first down.

Apparent loophole in the rule. What you are listed as on a roster has nothing to do where you line up on the field.

If you look just at the rule, there is no explanation how we are to know what position a player is supposed to play. Maybe there is a case play, but I cannot find one. I think the rule had a good intention, but did not think it through as to how this is to be identified. It is not like we have an "Official book" to use as a basis.

Peace

That's what I thought: there's no official designation as to what a position is. Makes the rule fairly useless then.

It is more administrative in nature. Nobody is going to tell a coach you can't shift a LB to FB because some 5th string walk on is already wearing #35.

I suspect that a violation of this rule is more likely to be punished after the game, by the NCAA itself - and not by officials on the field. Honestly, if some team had two different punters, or WR's, or guard's etc with the same number, I'm VERY unlikely to catch it.

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.

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.

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 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 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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

Agreed.

So.... in this situation having the QB and Punter wear the same number and then have said QB line up as a punter and run the play seems like a deceptive move to me. I have a foul. Do you?

Unless I can be ABSOLUTELY sure that the QB #16 and Punter #16 are not the same person, no, I do not have a foul.

In high school I played against a team whose quarterback was also their punter. Why can't a player, if appropriately skilled, do both?

Danny White did this in the pros.

I'm really surprised this has gotten as much play as it has. I don't even see most players' faces, much less memorize them and compare. I can see possibly catching this if it happened to be a captain - we see their faces early, and interact with them throughout the game. But even in an NCAA game, I don't see this getting noticed by the on-field officials.

Not this year but I've been a few times. Great clinic!

I agree. I'm talking more in general terms which is how Rogers described it. You would notice this if the QB left after 4th down and a different player comes in with the same number and lines up as a punter.

The point is, if your regular punter is 18, and your backup qb is 18, you can easily deceive the defense by sending in your backup qb to line up as your regular punter.
The defense is going to assume it's a punt and defend accordingly.

OTOH, at the college level, there shouldn't be any surprises after about week 2.

Which is pretty much what happened in this situation.

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.

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.

The play was run from the punt formation.

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.

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.

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

Exactly this.. imho.

I didn't see it.

Wait, here it is.

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

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!"

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.

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.

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.

See, if the format were 99.9, you wouldn't have to change any of the eligible receiver numbering rules and the ratio of the player numbers in those positions would stay almost the same. Instead of there being 30 numbers from 50 thru 79, there'd be 291 numbers: 50, 50.1,..., 78.9, 79 .

Poses an interesting issue for teams that wish to retire numbers. Does Ohio State retire all #27 combinations (#27.0 .. #27.0)? Or just #27.0?