|
|
Post by cad10047 on Nov 17, 2021 15:57:18 GMT -6
Hello, I am attaching a picture of an offensive formation and wondering if this formation is legal? I don't think it is, or don't know how it is. 1. There isn't 7 guys on the LOS 2. Everyone left of the OT went out for a pass and not sure how that is possible when there are truly interior receivers ![]()  covered, but no one is on the LOS so technically they aren't covered. Looking for some wise coach to explain how this can be run as a pass where all the receivers (outside the tackles) can go downfield. Thank you- |
|
|
|
Post by pistolwhipped on Nov 17, 2021 16:34:39 GMT -6
Looks to be a "quads OVER" look and is legal.
5 Linemen + #1 and #2 = 7 on LOS
#1,3,4, RB all eligible.
#2 should not be eligible for a reception.
|
|
|
|
Post by cad10047 on Nov 17, 2021 17:01:26 GMT -6
Thank you for the follow up. I have a question however, not sure that 1,2,3,4 are on the LOS. The LOS is the black line so they are off the LOS.
So if on the LOS, yes 2 isn't eligible, but none are on the LOS to me. The 3 is behind the other receivers giving the illusion they are on the LOS (so he is eligible either way), but again i don't see 1,2, 4 on the black line or LOS.
But let's say they are on the LOS, thank 1 is covering 2 and 4 so neither are eligible, not just 2 correct?.
So if on the LOS 1, 3 are only eligible, but again they don't look like they are on the LOS. So 5 men on the LOS (OT to OT). Does that make sense?
Thank you-
|
|
|
|
Post by rystaylo on Nov 17, 2021 17:02:00 GMT -6
I’m guessing #2 gained depth behind qb
|
|
|
|
Post by cad10047 on Nov 17, 2021 17:32:38 GMT -6
Sounds good and thank you all.
|
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Nov 17, 2021 17:53:59 GMT -6
Thank you for the follow up. I have a question however, not sure that 1,2,3,4 are on the LOS. The LOS is the black line so they are off the LOS. So if on the LOS, yes 2 isn't eligible, but none are on the LOS to me. The 3 is behind the other receivers giving the illusion they are on the LOS (so he is eligible either way), but again i don't see 1,2, 4 on the black line or LOS. But let's say they are on the LOS, thank 1 is covering 2 and 4 so neither are eligible, not just 2 correct?. So if on the LOS 1, 3 are only eligible, but again they don't look like they are on the LOS. So 5 men on the LOS (OT to OT). Does that make sense? Thank you- Often times, especially at the upper levels, officials don't end up being too big of sticklers on that. If they are close to the line then the benefit of the doubt is given. |
|
|
|
Post by coachscdub on Nov 17, 2021 21:17:28 GMT -6
by that logic the Guards and the Tackles arent on the LOS either (not trying to be a d!ck)
The Black line is a reference point, as long as the G's and T's break the centers hips they're legal, same goes for the WR's
|
|
|
|
Post by tog on Nov 17, 2021 22:16:52 GMT -6
Hello, I am attaching a picture of an offensive formation and wondering if this formation is legal? I don't think it is, or don't know how it is. 1. There isn't 7 guys on the LOS 2. Everyone left of the OT went out for a pass and not sure how that is possible when there are truly interior receivers ![]() covered, but no one is on the LOS so technically they aren't covered. Looking for some wise coach to explain how this can be run as a pass where all the receivers (outside the tackles) can go downfield. Thank you- that isn't legal whoever said it was can't see down a line |
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Nov 18, 2021 7:07:00 GMT -6
Thank you for the follow up. I have a question however, not sure that 1,2,3,4 are on the LOS. The LOS is the black line so they are off the LOS. Looks to me like that black line is team B's LOS -- thru the foremost point of the ball. Team A's LOS is thru the rearmost point. But a player of A is "on his line of scrimmage" if his head is level with or forward of the snapper's waist. Looks to me like team A has 8 on their line. |
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Nov 18, 2021 7:18:29 GMT -6
Thank you for the follow up. I have a question however, not sure that 1,2,3,4 are on the LOS. The LOS is the black line so they are off the LOS. So if on the LOS, yes 2 isn't eligible, but none are on the LOS to me. The 3 is behind the other receivers giving the illusion they are on the LOS (so he is eligible either way), but again i don't see 1,2, 4 on the black line or LOS. But let's say they are on the LOS, thank 1 is covering 2 and 4 so neither are eligible, not just 2 correct?. So if on the LOS 1, 3 are only eligible, but again they don't look like they are on the LOS. So 5 men on the LOS (OT to OT). Does that make sense? Thank you- Often times, especially at the upper levels, officials don't end up being too big of sticklers on that. If they are close to the line then the benefit of the doubt is given. Usually if it doesn't look like the team is trying to confuse their opponents as to who's an eligible receiver, the officials will rule any wideouts to have been either on or off the line as to make the formation legal while maximizing the number of eligible receivers. If one of a wide bunch goes in motion, they'll rule it to have started in the backfield. They may warn the players either before or after the play that they were in doubt as to whether they were on the line or in the backfield, but the warning is toothless. I think the officials are doing the right thing when they rule like this, because most of these are innocent errors that don't give the team an advantage. |
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Nov 18, 2021 7:49:49 GMT -6
Typically on the line is being defined as having your head past the hip of the center. #1 and #2 are definitely on the line, #3 is definitely off the line. I would make a serious argument that #4 is the on the line as well and should be ineligible.
My guess would be #3 ran a route within the '3 yards' of the line of scrimmage - some sort of screen, hitch or arrow route - but would have been ineligible to catch it.
This is where I continue to say that officials should spend less time arguing about shirtails, taunting and eye black and more time defining what downfield means (NFL rule is better) and policing alignments - since those actually do provide an advantage and were rules that were created with a purpose.
|
|
|
|
Post by bulldogsdc on Nov 18, 2021 8:06:53 GMT -6
Hello, I am attaching a picture of an offensive formation and wondering if this formation is legal? I don't think it is, or don't know how it is. 1. There isn't 7 guys on the LOS 2. Everyone left of the OT went out for a pass and not sure how that is possible when there are truly interior receivers ![]() covered, but no one is on the LOS so technically they aren't covered. Looking for some wise coach to explain how this can be run as a pass where all the receivers (outside the tackles) can go downfield. Thank you- Yes |
|
|
|
Post by newhope on Nov 18, 2021 10:18:01 GMT -6
Typically on the line is being defined as having your head past the hip of the center. #1 and #2 are definitely on the line, #3 is definitely off the line. I would make a serious argument that #4 is the on the line as well and should be ineligible. My guess would be #3 ran a route within the '3 yards' of the line of scrimmage - some sort of screen, hitch or arrow route - but would have been ineligible to catch it. This is where I continue to say that officials should spend less time arguing about shirtails, taunting and eye black and more time defining what downfield means (NFL rule is better) and policing alignments - since those actually do provide an advantage and were rules that were created with a purpose. You can't police alignments when your head is turned watching the sidelines--not to mention the few jerks out there who refuse to talk to the kids when they are trying to line up properly. And let me add, it's not entirely their fault when they are being told by higher-ups that policing the sideline is one of the prime things considered when determining who calls playoff games. |
|
|
|
Post by cwaltsmith on Nov 18, 2021 10:46:28 GMT -6
Hello, I am attaching a picture of an offensive formation and wondering if this formation is legal? I don't think it is, or don't know how it is. 1. There isn't 7 guys on the LOS 2. Everyone left of the OT went out for a pass and not sure how that is possible when there are truly interior receivers ![]() covered, but no one is on the LOS so technically they aren't covered. Looking for some wise coach to explain how this can be run as a pass where all the receivers (outside the tackles) can go downfield. Thank you- that isn't legal whoever said it was can't see down a line If the 2 bottom guys both guys both told the side judge they were on the LOS, and he gave them a thumbs up or told them ok, then Im confused on how it is illegal... that would make 7 guys on the LOS... actually NFHS doesnt even count men on LOS anymore ... they count men in the backfield and if not 5 then its legal. |
|
|
|
Post by blb on Nov 18, 2021 11:07:08 GMT -6
As pistolwhipped posted if #1 and #2 are "on" it is legal. But then #2 is ineligible. |
|
|
|
Post by tog on Nov 18, 2021 11:26:34 GMT -6
that isn't legal whoever said it was can't see down a line If the 2 bottom guys both guys both told the side judge they were on the LOS, and he gave them a thumbs up or told them ok, then Im confused on how it is illegal... that would make 7 guys on the LOS... actually NFHS doesnt even count men on LOS anymore ... they count men in the backfield and if not 5 then its legal. agree and if they did, they were wrong, and don't get me started on what I think of NFHS.... |
|
|
|
Post by Defcord on Nov 18, 2021 11:57:02 GMT -6
that isn't legal whoever said it was can't see down a line If the 2 bottom guys both guys both told the side judge they were on the LOS, and he gave them a thumbs up or told them ok, then Im confused on how it is illegal... that would make 7 guys on the LOS... actually NFHS doesnt even count men on LOS anymore ... they count men in the backfield and if not 5 then its legal. If it's not 5 or more technically. In this case it could potentially be 6 so wanted no confusion. |
|
|
|
Post by pistolwhipped on Nov 18, 2021 12:20:26 GMT -6
This could have been mentioned by Franklin in pregame.
"Hey we will come out in quads over where #1/2 are on, all other elgible #s are to be off. Just a heads up so its all clear."
|
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Nov 18, 2021 12:29:47 GMT -6
Typically on the line is being defined as having your head past the hip of the center. #1 and #2 are definitely on the line, #3 is definitely off the line. I would make a serious argument that #4 is the on the line as well and should be ineligible. My guess would be #3 ran a route within the '3 yards' of the line of scrimmage - some sort of screen, hitch or arrow route - but would have been ineligible to catch it. This is where I continue to say that officials should spend less time arguing about shirtails, taunting and eye black and more time defining what downfield means (NFL rule is better) and policing alignments - since those actually do provide an advantage and were rules that were created with a purpose. You can't police alignments when your head is turned watching the sidelines--not to mention the few jerks out there who refuse to talk to the kids when they are trying to line up properly. And let me add, it's not entirely their fault when they are being told by higher-ups that policing the sideline is one of the prime things considered when determining who calls playoff games. Yeah I much prefer the NFL's 1 yard ineligbles downfield rule and that they actually enforce it... |
|
|
|
Post by tog on Nov 18, 2021 12:33:39 GMT -6
If the 2 bottom guys both guys both told the side judge they were on the LOS, and he gave them a thumbs up or told them ok, then Im confused on how it is illegal... that would make 7 guys on the LOS... actually NFHS doesnt even count men on LOS anymore ... they count men in the backfield and if not 5 then its legal. If it's not 5 or more technically. In this case it could potentially be 6 so wanted no confusion. need 7 on los or #2 is ineligible here assuming it wasn't called and they threw a fade or some stupid "we recruit better than you " stuff |
|
|
|
Post by Defcord on Nov 18, 2021 12:54:26 GMT -6
If it's not 5 or more technically. In this case it could potentially be 6 so wanted no confusion. need 7 on los or #2 is ineligible here assuming it wasn't called and they threw a fade or some stupid "we recruit better than you " stuff Isn’t the rule changed to can’t have 5 or more in the backfield? So you could play with 5 or 6 on the line legally with 4 in the backfield but you would have to play with 9 or 10 on the field. |
|
|
|
Post by bignose on Nov 18, 2021 13:06:23 GMT -6
We can argue forever about this formation's legality, but as my old man used to tell me: "It ain't nuthin if they don't call it!"
|
|
|
|
Post by pistolwhipped on Nov 18, 2021 13:12:01 GMT -6
You could line 10 guys up on the los and it be a "legal" formation.
Eligible/ineligible is the key.
|
|
|
|
Post by tog on Nov 18, 2021 13:25:06 GMT -6
need 7 on los or #2 is ineligible here assuming it wasn't called and they threw a fade or some stupid "we recruit better than you " stuff Isn’t the rule changed to can’t have 5 or more in the backfield? So you could play with 5 or 6 on the line legally with 4 in the backfield but you would have to play with 9 or 10 on the field. in theory but with 11 it means 7 on the los imo |
|
|
|
Post by blb on Nov 18, 2021 13:55:37 GMT -6
We can argue forever about this formation's legality, but as my old man used to tell me: "It ain't nuthin if they don't call it!" True dat. We once played a 'T' formation team whose Ends' down hands were literally two yards off LOS (i.e. if nose of ball was on 50, their down hands were on 47, and their Center was NOT eight feet tall. even with arms outstretched to ball in four-point stance). In fact their feet were behind UC QB. Couldn't see QB's from straight down SL. Looked like the old-time "Flying Wedge" formation. But that was okay with those "officials." |
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Nov 18, 2021 15:46:10 GMT -6
they threw a fade or some stupid "we recruit better than you " stuff Candidate for quote of the year 😄 |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 18, 2021 18:34:22 GMT -6
Isn’t the rule changed to can’t have 5 or more in the backfield? So you could play with 5 or 6 on the line legally with 4 in the backfield but you would have to play with 9 or 10 on the field. in theory but with 11 it means 7 on the los imo The difference is with the new rule, it is not illegal for the offense to play with less than 11 players. |
|
|
|
Post by tog on Nov 18, 2021 20:31:16 GMT -6
in theory but with 11 it means 7 on the los imo The difference is with the new rule, it is not illegal for the offense to play with less than 11 players. agree yet it is dumb not sure why they would have changed it because someone complained they didn't have enough guys out there? I think they should be penalized extra, lol |
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Nov 18, 2021 21:38:03 GMT -6
If you play a snap with 10 guys you should be required to play the rest of the series with 10 haha.
|
|
|
|
Post by newhope on Nov 19, 2021 6:46:10 GMT -6
This could have been mentioned by Franklin in pregame. "Hey we will come out in quads over where #1/2 are on, all other elgible #s are to be off. Just a heads up so its all clear." I'll guarantee you it was. If you're doing anything the least bit unusual, or for which there is any possibility of officials missing it, go over it with them pregame. Not just alignment--I tell them that on jet sweep we're going to toss the ball forward, not hand it off. If things go wrong, I want it called as an incomplete, which is why we do it that way. But if you don't tell them, you're at their mercy. |
|
