Tackle Eligible

[shyndy]

 

 

 

so does the rule say somewhere that you must have 5 people with those numbers and that they have to line up on the LOS? Bama used a tackle eligible play by splitting their actual OL wide and putting the TE at the "tackle" spot.

 

I mean, if the rulebook doesn't say something dumb like "must be five players on the offense with ineligible numbers" then I simply would not use those numbers on my offensive players.

But was he off the line?

nah he is on the line and covered, the actual tackle isnt a receiver, the "tackle" that is played by their tight end is

But what I'm saying is I think he is actually lined up off the line of scrimmage, technically in the backfield, but in a three point stance. Otherwise I don't think he can be eligible.

 

sorry i dont have a link to the bama play, but he is lined up on the LoS, is not covered (he is the end man on the LoS), but is wearing 81 which apparently seems to be what is important (in college).

[shyndy]

Take it for what's it's worth. I got it from Wikipedia. Still doesn't mean the past was run properly. Also I don't know how to post this properly since I'm on my phone so I apologize.

 

 

Under almost all versions of gridiron football, offensive linemen cannot receive or touch forward passes, nor can they advance downfield in passing situations. To identify which receivers are eligible and which are not, football rules stipulate that ineligible receivers must wear a number between 50 and 79. This, however, can be circumvented in most leagues, most commonly by informing the referee of any player with a number in the ineligible range who lines up as an eligible receiver.

which for some reason the NCAA apparently doesn't allow, I still cannot find anywhere that it dictates ineligible recievers must wear certain numbers. I see one part that says it is strongly advised that you use an exemplar numbering system (the one shown is the standard double wing double TE) with standard numbering. But I cannot find something that says 5 players on the LoS must wear 50-79

[Husker in CA]

I think the deal was.....he didn't report as an eligible receiver because if the pass had been a lateral, he doesn't have to be an eligible receiver? If the pass had gone backwards just a touch more, that would have been 6 for the big guy. Missed it by that much.

[SnowBigRed]

I was watching the game in a location where I couldn't hear the announcers (local saloon), so I couldn't hear the explanation by the white hat or what the announcers were saying, but I don't think the issue was whether Lewis was eligible or not (because he was, assuming that he reported to the officials).

 

Looked to me as if the issue was that the other linemen were downfield and therefore the pass had to be backwards (a screen) in order for that to be legal.

 

I thought they called "ineligible man downfield", but that it was on one of the other linemen, not Lewis. There was no reason Lewis was ineligible assuming he reported to the officials, which I guarantee he did considering the play was 100% set up to go to him. You just don't forget to report as eligible if you are a 320 lb OT. That's every tackles dream.

[zoogs]

Oh. I thought that was intentional -- i.e, they intended it to be a lateral to avoid declaring him eligible.

[Saunders]

What blows my mind, is how the replay booth screwed it up so bad. The ball was thrown a full yard backwards. It should have counted, regardless of him being eligible or not.

[alexhortdog95]

 

 

#s 50-79 are ineligible unless you declare them eligible before the play. Anyone can get the ball when passed backwards. It's like a fumble. I coach high school ball in GA and we have a couple of trick plays using this to our advantage.

I didn't see anything in the rulebook yet about being able to declare eligibility. I remember that in HS coaches said that you should declare eligibility to the official but that it wasn't required ( i think, that was a long time ago)

 

 

 

Well...I think that Lewis could've reported as eligible, however it really was a trick play. It was meant to be a lateral and Armstrong or Lewis just didn't quite make it obvious enough. So regardless, it wasn't schematically supposed to be a pass anyways.

 

 

In college football, there are no tackle eligible plays if the player is using the incorrect number. Therefore, him reporting eligible wouldn't have mattered.

[billdozer15]

What blows my mind, is how the replay booth screwed it up so bad. The ball was thrown a full yard backwards. It should have counted, regardless of him being eligible or not.

This. And the ball appears to have been tipped which would have negated everything in regards to it being a lateral or not. It was a horrible job by the review booth. Preceeded by the amount of time it actually took them to call in the need for the review. It shouldnt have taken Barney calling a timeout (which we ultimately got back) in order to get them to review.

[roadrat]

What's better is the scholar in the broadcast booth kept calling the 16 yd line the 14 yd line which was wrong to begin with. Sure miss big 12 officiating......

[ZRod]

What's better is the scholar in the broadcast booth kept calling the 16 yd line the 14 yd line which was wrong to begin with. Sure miss big 12 officiating......

That's an SEC education for you right there.

[Red Five]

Oh. I thought that was intentional -- i.e, they intended it to be a lateral to avoid declaring him eligible.

 

This is my take as well. Lewis could easily slipped out into the flat if they wanted it to be a forward pass.

[Red Five]

 

 

 

#s 50-79 are ineligible unless you declare them eligible before the play. Anyone can get the ball when passed backwards. It's like a fumble. I coach high school ball in GA and we have a couple of trick plays using this to our advantage.

I didn't see anything in the rulebook yet about being able to declare eligibility. I remember that in HS coaches said that you should declare eligibility to the official but that it wasn't required ( i think, that was a long time ago)

 

 

 

Well...I think that Lewis could've reported as eligible, however it really was a trick play. It was meant to be a lateral and Armstrong or Lewis just didn't quite make it obvious enough. So regardless, it wasn't schematically supposed to be a pass anyways.

 

 

In college football, there are no tackle eligible plays if the player is using the incorrect number. Therefore, him reporting eligible wouldn't have mattered.

 

 

I wondered this as well. In the NFL, tackle eigible plays are fairly common around the goal line, but I was racking my brain trying to remember one from college.

[Husker in CA]

I think the head referee was a Big 12 guy. Wasn't he?

[Mavric]

 

 

 

 

#s 50-79 are ineligible unless you declare them eligible before the play. Anyone can get the ball when passed backwards. It's like a fumble. I coach high school ball in GA and we have a couple of trick plays using this to our advantage.

I didn't see anything in the rulebook yet about being able to declare eligibility. I remember that in HS coaches said that you should declare eligibility to the official but that it wasn't required ( i think, that was a long time ago)

 

 

 

Well...I think that Lewis could've reported as eligible, however it really was a trick play. It was meant to be a lateral and Armstrong or Lewis just didn't quite make it obvious enough. So regardless, it wasn't schematically supposed to be a pass anyways.

 

 

In college football, there are no tackle eligible plays if the player is using the incorrect number. Therefore, him reporting eligible wouldn't have mattered.

 

 

I wondered this as well. In the NFL, tackle eigible plays are fairly common around the goal line, but I was racking my brain trying to remember one from college.

 

 

This is correct. "Reporting as eligible" is an NFL rule. Doesn't exist in college. Linemen aren't eligible to receive a forward pass. The pass was supposed to be (and looked to be) backwards or at least parallel to the line of scrimmage, which means anyone should have been able to catch it and advance.

[jsneb83]

What's better is the scholar in the broadcast booth kept calling the 16 yd line the 14 yd line which was wrong to begin with. Sure miss big 12 officiating......

He corrected himself (made fun of himself for it too) , and it was a yard off the 15 yard line, so if he was just glancing at the yard line, it would probably be an easy mistake to make.