San Diego Breaking Rules?

[rmutv]

I begin this post with the disclaimer that I have neither seen video footage nor read first-hand accounts of this apparent rule-breaking. Also, this is my interpretation of the NCAA Football rule book from 2005, although it is not a subject that likely changed for 2006.

I found the rule book here: http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/2005/2005_football_rules.pdf

Now, the potential infraction:
On another message board, http://www.donhansen.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=8808#8808 , a San Diego fan and alum is quoted as saying the following:
"USD has become known for some unusual formations, which the Drake coach conplained about after the game and set they weren't set in time. (Incidentally, if that's true, USD can forfeit 5 TDs and still win).

One of these unusual formations was a 6 wide receiver, 4 O-linemen, empty backfield set. Not a lot of respect for the "#2 Midmajor" team.

I don't think I have ever heard of 6 WRs. And that was on the first drive even. It wasn't like they saw a mismatch and shifted into it!"

Now, this struck my as peculiar, so I went hunting and found the rule book. The rule book states the following in regards to down linemen:
"On a scrimmage down, at least five offensive players on the scrimmage
line shall be numbered 50 through 79 (Exception: During a scrimmage
kick formation, a player, who by his initial position on the line of scrimmage, is an exception to the 50-79 mandatory numbering, remains an
ineligible receiver during the down until a legal forward pass is touched
by a Team B player or an official. He must be positioned on the line of
scrimmage and between the end players on the line of scrimmage. The
ineligible receivers (interior linemen) are identified when the snapper
assumes his position and touches or simulates (hand[s] at or below his
knees) touching the ball. A player remains an ineligible receiver and is
an exception to the 50-79 mandatory numbering until the down is over,
a timeout is charged to a team or the referee, or a period ends.) (A.R.
1-4-2-I, IV and V) [S19]."

Seems to me, based off of the account by Torero Alum and the rule book, that San Diego did not follow that rule.

There is no mention of any of this in any recap of the game that I have found. Insight from someone that watched the game?

[DFW HOYA]

The NCAA does not mandate numbers the way the NFL does. A offensive lineman does not have to wear #s 50-79, nor is it set for defense.

[I Bleed Purple]

There could be six receivers I think, but only five would be eligible down the field. You have to have seven on the line and the ends would cover the rest on the line. Six receivers and four lineman mean you have to have three receivers on the line, covering one of them up.

[blukeys]

There could be six receivers I think, but only five would be eligible down the field. You have to have seven on the line and the ends would cover the rest on the line. Six receivers and four lineman mean you have to have three receivers on the line, covering one of them up.
But if all six have numbers for being eligible receivers then there can be confusion about who is and who is not eligible. It is difficult at times to see who is and is not convered or unconvered as you have to check the flankers to see if they are or not off the ball.

While this may not be a rule violation it certainly violates the rule's intent which is to clearly discern who is an eligible receiver.

The NCAA outlawed the step on the field "substitution" for just such a reason.

[AggiePride]

lol

[rmutv]

Yeah, it's not so much a question of the numbers but a question of the eligible receivers. According to the original post, there were 6 actual receivers, a QB, 2 RBs, and 4 linemen. That's where the question comes in.

[Russ B]

Sounds like they just stood a lineman up in a slot receiver spot to bother the defense (or start him farther to the outside to set up a WR screen).

[GOTOREROS]

Sounds like they just stood a lineman up in a slot receiver spot to bother the defense (or start him farther to the outside to set up a WR screen).

That's exacly what happened. Nothing illegal but something a lot of PFL teams NEVER see. USD has a great coaching staff, Harbaugh might be a jackass but he knows what he is doing....

GOTOREROS

[Russ B]

"Nothing illegal but something a lot of PFL teams NEVER see. "

It's on film, now. ;)

[GOTOREROS]

"Nothing illegal but something a lot of PFL teams NEVER see. "

It's on film, now. ;)

USD has been doing it all year - against 3 other PFL team before Drake. It comes down to sour grapes - it was on film BEFORE the Drake game. USD shifts A LOT........ :D

GOTOREROS

[bkrownd]

It ain't illegal if the ref didn't throw a flag at it, rules or no rules. Trickerification cannot be stopped!

[GOTOREROS]

It ain't illegal if the ref didn't throw a flag at it, rules or no rules. Trickerification cannot be stopped!

Exactly - it's nice to see people are obsessed with finding dirt on USD though - must mean we have arrived - in the PFL at least! LOL! xlolx

GOTOREROS

[PantherRob82]

not sure how it would go all season unnoticed. sounds like some good plays by the USD coaching staff. Seems like it paid off. 37-0 it pretty convincing.

[rmutv]

It ain't illegal if the ref didn't throw a flag at it, rules or no rules. Trickerification cannot be stopped!

So you're saying that refs see everything, comprehend everything, and flag every infraction and penalty. :rolleyes:

The point of my post was to raise questions about a report about it. I'm still dubious about it just because I haven't seen it. It's not like San Diego would have to forfeit or anything if there was a rule violation.

I'm just curious to see what the hell this thing looked like. :eek:

[Russ B]

Like a kickoff, but with four down lineman. :D

[GOTOREROS]

As someone said USD has a pretty good coaching staff - it isn't just Harbaugh. Here is a link to our coaching staff - you can read bios and see how they can come up with inventive plays...

http://usdtoreros.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/usd-m-footbl-mtt.html#coaches

GOTOREROS

[redbirdtim]

37-0 is quite a spanking of the Drake Bulldogs. I just wish USD would play a top 25 team so I could see how they do and see if they are deserving of a playoff bid. I think of it this way...there is a reason why teams like Boise State, TCU, etc. are ranked below "BCS power schools" that have 1 loss in the BCS rankings-strength of schedule. It would be interesting to see how USD would do against an A-10 or Gateway schedule.

[GOTOREROS]

37-0 is quite a spanking of the Drake Bulldogs. I just wish USD would play a top 25 team so I could see how they do and see if they are deserving of a playoff bid. I think of it this way...there is a reason why teams like Boise State, TCU, etc. are ranked below "BCS power schools" that have 1 loss in the BCS rankings-strength of schedule. It would be interesting to see how USD would do against an A-10 or Gateway schedule.

I agree - until USD plays someone it is conjecture as to how good we are. No problem with that at all.......I guess we find out on 11/25 when we play Davis.

GOTOREROS

[bkrownd]

So you're saying that refs see everything, comprehend everything, and flag every infraction and penalty. :rolleyes:


No, I'm saying that bending the rules is part of the game. Anything and everything legal, regardless of the rulebook, as long as there isn't a yellow hankie on the ground at the end of the play. :thumbsup: I'm all for creative rule bending!

[USDFAN_55]

It ain't illegal if the ref didn't throw a flag at it, rules or no rules. Trickerification cannot be stopped!
You took the words right out of my mouth. There are refs at a game for a reason, aren't there?

[I Bleed Purple]

Sounds like they just stood a lineman up in a slot receiver spot to bother the defense (or start him farther to the outside to set up a WR screen).
That would make sense. Wide formations aren't necessarily a new thing. A wide punting formation has gained popularity recently.

[PantherRob82]

it sounds like they ran it more than once. the refs should catch it at some point in time.

[SDFan]

SD does that formation quite a bit in games, nothing illegal.

They also do seem to shift a lot as some people have mentioned.

[Husky Alum]

It ain't illegal if the ref didn't throw a flag at it, rules or no rules. Trickerification cannot be stopped!

Highly ironic comment from someone at UMass as Don Brown returns to Northeastern this weekend. :D

Had to get one dig in before the game.

[bkrownd]

Highly ironic comment from someone at UMass as Don Brown returns to Northeastern this weekend. :D

Had to get one dig in before the game.

Sounds like somebody's stuck in the past. :bawling: :nono:

[*****]

Is this illegal?

[PantherRob82]

Is this illegal?

I'd say no.

[GOTOREROS]

Is this illegal?

Apparently, the USD coaching staff met with the officials prior to the game and told them about the shifts and formations to ensure they were legal. Hence, no flags.

Sounds like the Drake staff was simply outcoached and don't know the rules themselves - LOL!

GOTOREROS

[I Bleed Purple]

I'd say no.
It's not illegal. Two things though. The second X on the line in the four wide formation is ineligible to go downfield on a pass play. The last X on the line, next to the center, has to be an eligible number or be declared eligible.



Interesting formation. Once or twice a game may confuse the defense, but I think if you have a thought that it may come, it's not that hard to defend.

[LeopardFan04]

Don't you need seven men up at the line? There's only 6 actually on the line in that diagram, unless I'm seeing it wrong...

[BigApp]

Ahhhhhh...love me some San Diego....sandy beaches....hot drinks...cool women....wait

[I Bleed Purple]

Don't you need seven men up at the line? There's only 6 actually on the line in that diagram, unless I'm seeing it wrong...

Duh. That's right. Kudos for me for being dumb.

If that Back on the right was put on the line, then it would be legal.

[LeopardFan04]

So is there a way to get 6 eligible receivers? I mean without something too wacky like throwing to the QB...with 7 on the line, only 2 of those are eligible potentially...that leaves 4 men in the backfield...but one's the QB...so 5 receivers/backs...plus the quarterback...do i have that straight?

[AggiePride]

Reminds me of the cr@p my H.S. coached tried to pull.

Blah....

[walliver]

So is there a way to get 6 eligible receivers? I mean without something too wacky like throwing to the QB...with 7 on the line, only 2 of those are eligible potentially...that leaves 4 men in the backfield...but one's the QB...so 5 receivers/backs...plus the quarterback...do i have that straight?

The quarterback is only eligible if lined up in a shotgun-type formation. A quarterback in a T-offense is not eligible. Basically any offensive formation that it not a T variation has 6 eligible receivers (2 ends and 4 backs). A T formation has 5 eligible receivers. Since the 5 inside linemen are never eligible, there is no way to get more eligible receivers. Now an offensive formation may make it look otherwise, that is you could spread the tackle out and make it look like he is a receiver, but he wouldn't be eligible to catch a pass.

[DUPFLFan]

Is this illegal?

I would say yes. Doesn't each side of the line have to be covered?

There is only six on the line in your diagram....

There is supposed to be seven on the line and four in the backfield...

Attached is one formation that I saw.... This is illegal and was not called.

[UAalum72]

I think this is legal, but only the ends are eligible receivers.

From the NCAA rule book


When the snap starts: The offensive team must be in a formation that
meets these requirements:
1. At least seven players legally on their scrimmage line, not less than
five of whom shall be numbered 50 through 79. The remaining
players must be either on their scrimmage line or legally positioned
as a back (A.R. 2-27-4-I) [S19].

[I Bleed Purple]

You can have as many on the line as you want after 7.

Also, I'm confused. The quarterback is ALWAYS behind the line of scrimmage, so he should be eligible no matter if he is under center or not. Taking the snap directly from center still makes him eligible.

[Russ B]

Attached is one formation that I saw.... This is illegal and was not called.

http://www.anygivensaturday.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3407&stc=1&d=1161718494

I don't see what's illegal about that formation.

[LeopardFan04]

looks legal...but only the two on the very end (WRs) are eligible, but the 3 in the backfield, including the QB

[DUPFLFan]

http://www.anygivensaturday.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3407&stc=1&d=1161718494

I don't see what's illegal about that formation.

Russ - how about the fact that there are eight on the line instead of seven and only three instead of four in the backfield???

Also- show the rule that allows eight or more on the line of scrimmage...

[UAalum72]

Seven on the line is a MINIMUM
See Rule 4, page 96 of 253 http://http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/2006/2006_football_rules.pdf


I think this is legal, but only the ends are eligible receivers.

From the NCAA rule book


When the snap starts: The offensive team must be in a formation that
meets these requirements:
1. At least seven players legally on their scrimmage line, not less than
five of whom shall be numbered 50 through 79. The remaining
players must be either on their scrimmage line or legally positioned
as a back (A.R. 2-27-4-I) [S19].

[DUPFLFan]

Seven on the line is a MINIMUM
See Rule 4, page 96 of 253 http://http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/2006/2006_football_rules.pdf

Then riddle me this.

When there are two receivers on the same side of the line of scrimmage, and one moves forward to cover the line, the other moves back. Why?

In your interpretation, if one moves up, the other doesn't need to move back. but they do...

In penalties of American football an Illegal formation is called because
The offense must have seven players on the line of scrimmage

So you are saying that you can have more than seven (up to 10) ont he line of scrimmage?

[Russ B]

Then riddle me this.

When there are two receivers on the same side of the line of scrimmage, and one moves forward to cover the line, the other moves back. Why?

In your interpretation, if one moves up, the other doesn't need to move back. but they do...

In penalties of American football an Illegal formation is called because
The offense must have seven players on the line of scrimmage

So you are saying that you can have more than seven (up to 10) ont he line of scrimmage?


As I understand it, that has to do with the eligible receiver rules. The guys stepping back are becoming "backs" rather than "linemen."

[LeopardFan04]

Exactly, on the line only the two receivers on the ends are eligible...so when the other guys step back, they are in the backfield and are eligible...

[USDFAN_55]

I can't believe this discussion has made it this far. We are now talking about very basic rules of football, and I am hoping this is all elementary to these true fans here at AGS. Back to the topic at hand..... whether or not San Diego is "Breaking" the rules, the refs are obviously not seeing anything wrong. That is all that matters, plain and simple. Illegal formations happen all the time, so you can't try and make it seem as if USD is cheating. If a rule is broken, the refs will call it (and sometimes they call it when it isn't being broken, but that is another topic).

[HensRock]

Yep. The player stepping back does so to become eligible (or for the other receiver on his side to become eligible).

He doesn't have to step back. He can stand there, but then only the outer-most receiver on the line is eligible.

:twocents:

[mcveyrl]

Getting away from the "rules" aspect of this. Were the teams DLs and LBs not fast enough to collapse on the QB quickly with only four linemen? I don't see how this formation works:confused: :confused:

I'm actually all for USD getting to the playoffs to see what they're really about, but this might be where the schollies flex their muscle. I don't think four linemen works against the A-10 or SoCon.