Illegal formation

[thunderkyss]

Does anyone listen to 610 am anymore?

I was listening to them last night & Barry Warner was going on & on about how our best OLman made such a "stupid mistake" & used that as evidence of how "deer in the headlights" we were.

I agree with the deer in the headlights thing, but there was nothing 76 could've done on that play. The offending player was actually 83.

[Luv_ya_blue]

Originally Posted by 76Texan

Yeah, but Walter is a receiver and it was a run play that went the other way.
Walter didn't gain any advantage in blocking or anything; he wasn't involved in the play.

And if the refs normally don't call it, why do it now?

I couldn't see the pic that was posted earlier in the thread (little red "x" and all), so I'm not sure what exactly happened...but my guess is that they saw something more out of the ordinary than usual.

Can't be sure since I didn't see the play.

[infantrycak]

Originally Posted by Luv_ya_blue

I couldn't see the pic that was posted earlier in the thread (little red "x" and all), so I'm not sure what exactly happened...but my guess is that they saw something more out of the ordinary than usual.

Can't be sure since I didn't see the play.

AJ is lined up wide right about a yard off the ball. KW is lined up wide left about two yards off the ball.

[Luv_ya_blue]

Originally Posted by infantrycak

AJ is lined up wide right about a yard off the ball. KW is lined up wide left about two yards off the ball.

So basically they just didn't have enough on the LOS?

[infantrycak]

Originally Posted by Luv_ya_blue

So basically they just didn't have enough on the LOS?

The call was odd. My understanding is if 5 ineligible receivers are on the LOS then you are fine. There were definitely 5 OLmen on the LOS (putting aside the staggering issue). What the ref said was "76 was uncovered." Not sure if he meant Walter was ineligible because he wasn't at the LOS but was a receiver although it was a run play so him being eligible was irrelevant.

[76Texan]

Originally Posted by infantrycak

The call was odd. My understanding is if 5 ineligible receivers are on the LOS then you are fine. There were definitely 5 OLmen on the LOS (putting aside the staggering issue). What the ref said was "76 was uncovered." Not sure if he meant Walter was ineligible because he wasn't at the LOS but was a receiver although it was a run play so him being eligible was irrelevant.

This is it!

[76Texan]

The official game book called Walter for the illegal formation infraction.

Within the rules, it's all well and good.

But they don't normally call that; especially when it's a running play and the receiver has nothing to do with the play.

The problem I had is that if you start out the game calling penalty by the book, then you need to do it throughout the game with no exception.

[Luv_ya_blue]

Originally Posted by infantrycak

The call was odd. My understanding is if 5 ineligible receivers are on the LOS then you are fine. There were definitely 5 OLmen on the LOS (putting aside the staggering issue). What the ref said was "76 was uncovered." Not sure if he meant Walter was ineligible because he wasn't at the LOS but was a receiver although it was a run play so him being eligible was irrelevant.

The ref could've stated "76 was uncovered" in the place of saying "not enough men on the LOS." There are a variety of different ways you can have an illegal formation--that's why I was asking.

So it was something like this:

---------------D E F E N S E --------------

----------------O O X O O-----------------
O---O-------------- O --------------------
---------------------------------------O--
-------------------- O --------------------
-------------------- O --------------------

If only 5 were on the line then it's IF all day. I wouldn't get hung up on exactly what the ref said per sai. I know that I've given explanations when mic'ed up that I thought (after I said it) "what the crap does that even mean?" lol Caught in the moment, sometimes the white hat's explanation can be lacking.

[silvrhand]

Guys, Kevin was off the mark at least 2 yards, it's clearly the right call all Kevin has to do is ask the Line Judge to check, and he'll clearly get a response from the line judge.

I'm not sure what we are arguing about here.

[Vinny]

Originally Posted by Luv_ya_blue

So basically they just didn't have enough on the LOS?

you have to cover the tackle with an end. You have to have an "end" on the line. Either a TIGHTend or a SPLITend...but you have to have an end. You can't have two "ends" on the line either...just one end on each side of your tackles.

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by Vinny

you have to cover the tackle with an end. You have to have an "end" on the line. Either a TIGHTend or a SPLITend...but you have to have an end. You can't have two "ends" on the line either...just one end on each side of your tackles.

So what do you do when we have two receivers on one side? Are you saying I have to have a TE on the other side, on the line?

[Vinny]

Originally Posted by Fiddler

So what do you do when we have two receivers on one side? Are you saying I have to have a TE on the other side, on the line?

how long have you been watching football pards? One moves back. Catch a game this weekend. ONE end over the Tackle. Period. Guys perfect this in the 5th grade.

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by Vinny

how long have you been watching football pards? One moves back. Catch a game this weekend. ONE end over the Tackle. Period. Guys perfect this in the 5th grade.

Well I ask, because I thought that was the rule. I started this thread, because I know there are different "interpretations" One includes having to cover the end. the other is that you have to have 7 men on the LOS.

If you are in a two receiver set & they are both on the left, who's covering the right tackle?

With the understanding that you "have" to cover the end over the tackle, then that means you have to have a TE on the right if you have two receivers on the left & I don't believe that is true.

[Vinny]

if you have two wr's on one side then one has to be off the line or the inside wr isn't eligible for a pass since only an end is eligible to catch a pass on the line. Is the RT eligible on the other unbalanced side then?

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by Vinny

if you have two wr's on one side then one has to be off the line or the inside wr isn't eligible for a pass since only an end is eligible to catch a pass on the line. Is the RT eligible on the other unbalanced side then?

In that case you only have 6 men on the LOS which is why we got the penalty.

I guess you have to have a TE on the right side.

[Rey]

Originally Posted by 76Texan

The official game book called Walter for the illegal formation infraction.

Within the rules, it's all well and good.

But they don't normally call that; especially when it's a running play and the receiver has nothing to do with the play.

The problem I had is that if you start out the game calling penalty by the book, then you need to do it throughout the game with no exception.

They will usually call that regardless because it affects who is eligible.

And who is eligible affects how the defense plays.

But the story here is that the texans played a little league game and made a little league type of mistake.

[Vinny]

Originally Posted by Fiddler

In that case you only have 6 men on the LOS which is why we got the penalty.

yeah, Jerry Markbreit I'm not huh? 7 men on the line is needed, but if you run an unbalanced line you just wont have as many eligible receivers.

[infantrycak]

Don't know why it won't let me cut and paste. The rule is on page 36 - Link.

While I agree the rule was violated, this kind of thing is typically handled by refs warning players and that should have been done here.

[76Texan]

Originally Posted by Rey

They will usually call that regardless because it affects who is eligible.

And who is eligible affects how the defense plays.

But the story here is that the texans played a little league game and made a little league type of mistake.

Check out the reference on the Tebow's TD pass to Thomas.
The Bronco's did not have 7 men on the LOS.

The Te who was in violation of the rule, was involved in the play, as he was blocking.

The league issued a statement saying that it was a legal formation; ie. They don't enforce that rule.

They can't just interpret the rule as they see fit.
They are the ones that need to be held accountable.

You can't have a rule where you only enforce "sometimes" while doing the exact opposite some other times.

That's called rules of the jungle.

[silvrhand]

Originally Posted by infantrycak

Don't know why it won't let me cut and paste. The rule is on page 36 - Link.

While I agree the rule was violated, this kind of thing is typically handled by refs warning players and that should have been done here.

IMHO, it's up to the player to ask the ref as they are lining up, not the other way around.