Erase my pick? I didn’t notice the picture. I need to look better. I was thinking you just out a scenario out there.

I have to revisit the numbering exceptions for NFHS. In the above he is eligible if his number is legal, bc the WR at the bottom is off the line. In highschool you need 5 on the line of scrimmage numbered 50-79, doesn’t matter how they line up just on the LOS. Great discussion for sure.

5 minutes ago, Breds82 said:

Erase my pick? I didn’t notice the picture. I need to look better. I was thinking you just out a scenario out there.

I am too dumb to know how to change it. Lol. So you are voting "Incorrect"?

I’m undecided currently. I’ll revisit the case book after the Bengals game. Are you asking bc you may add a new wrinkle to the playbook this year? Happy new year keep up the good work.

2 minutes ago, Breds82 said:

I’m undecided currently. I’ll revisit the case book after the Bengals game. Are you asking bc you may add a new wrinkle to the playbook this year? Happy new year keep up the good work.

No. I am asking because beginning to think there is alot of confusion across all 3 levels of football based on what I am reading on social media, etc. 

Happy New Year to you!

When I look at that picture #68 is clearly not eligible.  To me they are both on the LOS.  In professional football some things have become a farce and this is one of them.  Also, I did see where Commissioner Tackett commented on this:

Funny you should mention it as this will be a point of emphasis next season as to clear separation from linemen and backs. Pros just don’t seem to give a care about enforcing it but it’s a heck of an advantage if it isn’t clear who is on the line.

The NFL is a different animal due to their rules. They have pretty much given up who is on and who is off the LOS past a few cases. 
 

In HS (who play by Fed rules) I would vote correct in the poll. 
 

To be eligible in HS you must have both a legal number and either be off the LOS or the EMLOS. To be on the LOS part of your body has to break the hip of the center. 
 

Now there is a rule that you rarely see enforced that a player off the LOS can not be breaking the hip of those on the LOS. A player taking a direct snap from the center is exempt from the rule. What that boils down to is a player off the LOS should have enough depth to clearly define home into the backfield. 

5 minutes ago, barrel said:

The NFL is a different animal due to their rules. They have pretty much given up who is on and who is off the LOS past a few cases. 
 

In HS (who play by Fed rules) I would vote correct in the poll. 
 

To be eligible in HS you must have both a legal number and either be off the LOS or the EMLOS. To be on the LOS part of your body has to break the hip of the center. 
 

Now there is a rule that you rarely see enforced that a player off the LOS can not be breaking the hip of those on the LOS. A player taking a direct snap from the center is exempt from the rule. What that boils down to is a player off the LOS should have enough depth to clearly define home into the backfield. 

I would also vote correct. 

Over the years, we have taught anyone that is "off" the ball to not break the plane if you extended a line from the deepest cleat of someone on the OL. That has worked well, but we will still screw up at times. 

 

MOST of the time, you want your players watching football on TV to learn from the older/better players. In terms of lining up legally, we are better off if they don't watch the NFL. 

20 hours ago, theguru said:

When I look at that picture #68 is clearly not eligible.  To me they are both on the LOS.  In professional football some things have become a farce and this is one of them.  Also, I did see where Commissioner Tackett commented on this:

Funny you should mention it as this will be a point of emphasis next season as to clear separation from linemen and backs. Pros just don’t seem to give a care about enforcing it but it’s a heck of an advantage if it isn’t clear who is on the line.

In NFHS and NCAA football 68 is ineligible by NUMBER. The other criteria for eligibility is POSITION with respect to formation. If the NFL(I call it WWF football) was smart they would use that criteria and remove the need to report. That almost puts an official in the position of coaching which you never want to do. Preventative officiating is a different concept.

The other rule in the NFL is that the EMLOS cannot have an ineligible number (unless he reports). There was some loop hole a few years back I think the patriots used or maybe the ravens which were strange eligibility niche cases. 

This is one of those rules I definitely don't understand. 

I know the focus is on the bottom WR but when looking at the top it gets a little messy too. The H back on the top is in no man’s land. In HS they are probably going to rule that player covered up or flag him for not clearly being on or off the LOS. 

Outside REC is clearly off the line, even with the bad angle of the pic. Ball is on the 3 and his back foot is almost on the 5... does he have a 6ft. stride distance in his stance? #68 is 100% eligible as long as he declared. 

Clearly 4 guys in the backfield. Bottom WR, QB, RB, and the TE lined up at Wing (close, but in the NFL if its clear you're lined up back compared to the guy next to you you're "off".) If 68 reported as eligible, he's basically playing TE and can go out for a pass. LG, C, RG, RT, and the Right Outside T (58) are the 5 OL and are ineligible.

 

Need 7 men on the line of scrimmage.  That checks out.    Here is the play on youtube.  They shift prior to running the play.  The guys who were originally on and off the line of scrimmage are the same before and after the shift.  Good play call.  Blown call.