Duplicate Number Question

[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?

[JRutledge]

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

[Robert Goodman]

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.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

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.

[HLin NC]

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

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

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

[HLin NC]

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.

[MD Longhorn]

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.

[bwburke94]

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bwburke94

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.

[parepat]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by parepat

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.

[parepat]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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?