Illegal Formation Penalty

#3
#3
JFreak said:
During the OU game I believe we had an illegal formation penalty that resulted in a 5-yd penalty and loss of down. I don't recall ever seeing the loss of down before and can't find it anywhere in the NCAA rule book. Am I off my rocker?
Click to expand...
The loss of down penalty was for illegal touching…the TE was covered by the WR but went down field and caught the pass…it’s weird that it’s a loss of down penalty.

Edit: The play by play actually says it was “illegal forward pass” but it was because the TE was an ineligible receiver
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Vol8188, BristolVol, TennesseeTarheel and 3 others
#5
#5
I believe it was actually “illegal touching” since the ineligible man caught the ball. It was a result of the WR being lined up on the LOS instead off 1 yard.

Why NCAA doesn’t go to the pro rule here is stupid. Any player on offense with a 50, 60 or 70 number must check in as “eligible”. Otherwise anyone is eligible. It would make officiating easier which they desperately need to do
 
  • Like
Reactions: Godfatha, BanditVol, FBtime and 5 others
#6
#6
wmcovol said:
I believe it was actually “illegal touching” since the ineligible man caught the ball. It was a result of the WR being lined up on the LOS instead off 1 yard.

Why NCAA doesn’t go to the pro rule here is stupid. Any player on offense with a 50, 60 or 70 number must check in as “eligible”. Otherwise anyone is eligible. It would make officiating easier which they desperately need to do
Click to expand...
It's my understanding that pros can't cover the TE with a WR either. A player with a 50, 60 or 70 must report as eligible but still can't be covered by a WR if they go downfield or catch a pass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: onevol74, Plecoptera and titansvolsfaninga
#12
#12
Sarms58 said:
But it was a loss of down…that was the second down play, we were penalized 5 yards and the next play was third down. Weird.
Click to expand...
Yep went back to view and he did call it a loss of down, that is strange
 
#13
#13
Sarms58 said:
The loss of down penalty was for illegal touching…the TE was covered by the WR but went down field and caught the pass…it’s weird that it’s a loss of down penalty.

Edit: The play by play actually says it was “illegal forward pass” but it was because the TE was an ineligible receiver
Click to expand...
He was behind the line of scrimmage when he caught the ball. Not sure that changes the penalty but he was wasn’t across the line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: robed20
#15
#15
OrangeVolMan said:
He was behind the line of scrimmage when he caught the ball. Not sure that changes the penalty but he was wasn’t across the line.
Click to expand...
That only affects illegal man downfield penalties. Illegal touching is when an ineligible receiver catches the ball.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sarms58
#18
#18
What I haven’t read anywhere is who was in the wrong formation - the split out receiver or the attached TE who caught the pass.

And if I’m correct if that same play had resulted in a completion to someone else it would have been legal *as long as* the covered TE didn’t go downfield on a route.

Once he was covered by the wide out he basically became a sixth ineligible player - in other words another lineman.

Seem right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: VOLINVONORE and 37620VOL
#19
#19
Sarms58 said:
The loss of down penalty was for illegal touching…the TE was covered by the WR but went down field and caught the pass…it’s weird that it’s a loss of down penalty.

Edit: The play by play actually says it was “illegal forward pass” but it was because the TE was an ineligible receiver
Click to expand...
I think illegal touching was mentioned because someone (probably my wife) made some 8th grader joke about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Plecoptera and Sarms58
#21
#21
Beth1308 said:
What I haven’t read anywhere is who was in the wrong formation - the split out receiver or the attached TE who caught the pass.

And if I’m correct if that same play had resulted in a completion to someone else it would have been legal *as long as* the covered TE didn’t go downfield on a route.

Once he was covered by the wide out he basically became a sixth ineligible player - in other words another lineman.

Seem right?
Click to expand...
The covered receiver can only block.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sarms58
#23
#23
Thanks y’all. So in that play where the penalty was called if a different receiver had caught the pass and the covered TE didn’t run a route downfield but stayed back as a sixth lineman and pass blocked it would have been a legal play. If that covered TE went on a pass route it would be lineman downfield and if he caught a pass (as he did) it would be illegal touching.

GBO!
 
  • Like
Reactions: KTrain, 37620VOL, volinSmyrna and 2 others
#24
#24
Sarms58 said:
Yea, the loss of down on an intentional grounding call makes sense…the illegal touching should be treated as an incomplete pass…JMO
Click to expand...

Without the rule then QBs could avoid intentional grounding (and the loss of down) by throwing to a lineman.
 
#25
#25
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Without the rule then QBs could avoid intentional grounding (and the loss of down) by throwing to a lineman.
Click to expand...
True…they could save sack/penalty yardage loss..treating it as an incomplete pass still means hey lose the down. Maybe if it weren’t loss of down and yardage we would see it happen intentionally as you say. But we only see it now as a result of a formation issue where an inside receiver gets covered up by an outside receiver. I’d favor either a 5 yard penalty and replay the down or just make it an incomplete pass. just my opinion
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top