FED: Eligible Number/Receiver

[johnnyg08]

Is there ever a time where a player w/ an ineligible number can legally catch a non-tipped forward pass?

Based on the rule citation below it appears as though the answer is no.

What are the instances where a player w/ an ineligible number could legally receive a hand off? Example: could #76 lined up as a full back, legally carry a hand off?

Thank you.


ART. 6 . . . Pass eligibility rules apply only to a legal forward pass. The following players are eligible pass receivers:

a. All A players eligible by position and number include those who, at the time of the snap, are on the ends of their scrimmage line or legally behind the line (possible total of six) and are numbered 1 to 49 or 80 to 99. (See 7-2-5b EXCEPTION 2)

b. All A players become eligible when B touches a legal forward pass.

c. All B players are eligible.

d. A player who is eligible at the start of the down remains eligible throughout the down.

[bisonlj]

Players with ineligible numbers can:

Line up as a back and receive a handoff
Line up as a lineman and receive a handoff if he turns 180 degrees and is 1 yard behind the neutral zone
Line up anywhere and receive a backward pass
Line up anywhere and a touch a forward pass if B touches it first

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

What are the instances where a player w/ an ineligible number could legally receive a hand off? Example: could #76 lined up as a full back, legally carry a hand off?

Eligible receiver restrictions only apply to forward passes. They have nothing to do with hand offs.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

Players with ineligible numbers can:
...Line up as a lineman and receive a handoff if he turns 180 degrees and is 1 yard behind the neutral zone

Or, regardless of any turning or position on the field, if he's not ahead of the player handing the ball off. People here keep forgetting that one.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Or, regardless of any turning or position on the field, if he's not ahead of the player handing the ball off. People here keep forgetting that one.

True once the play develops and the runner gets in front of him. As unlikely as it is to hand off to a lineman, it's even more unlikely to do it under this circumstance. You are most likely to involve a big guy in a running play in short yardage situation. If the runner is able to get ahead of the lineman he's likely to already have achieved the yardage they wanted to achieve.

[Robert Goodman]

The guy was asking about legality, not likelihood. But actually there are plays where an interior OL pulls behind or level with the QB to take a handoff. They don't have to do as much of a turn for that as they would for a forward handoff.

I have a play where there's a forward handoff by a RB to a T who's turned around behind the G, and then the ball is taken from him by the opposite T who pulls around behind him.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

People here keep forgetting that one.

How do you know what anyone else here has forgotten unless they say, "I forgot that?"

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

How do you know what anyone else here has forgotten unless they say, "I forgot that?"

Because they keep listing other provisions as if the only ones to be considered were those involving a forward handoff.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Because they keep listing other provisions as if the only ones to be considered were those involving a forward handoff.

Poor assumption.

Have you considered that the reason for that is there's no restrictions on backwards handoffs? The only issues are with forward handoffs. Therefore, the discussion centers around forward handoffs, not backwards handoffs.

I assure you, I haven't forgotten and I doubt others here have forgotten either. But thanks for bringing it to our attention.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Poor assumption.

Have you considered that the reason for that is there's no restrictions on backwards handoffs? The only issues are with forward handoffs. Therefore, the discussion centers around forward handoffs, not backwards handoffs.

Maybe you got that from johnnyg08's question (and similar ones in the past), but I sure don't.