Was the 2 point conversion an illegal formation?

[Warthog]

After watching the play about 10 times something didn't seem right to me. Then it struck me, it was an illegal formation. Neither Winovich nor Barnes even lined up on the line on the left side. Meaning Nystrom, the left tackle, was uncovered. Winovich goes in motion and gets set on the line to make seven on the line (WR out wide, although it looks questionable to me that he was even on the line either!. Winovich, and the 5 offensive lineman). Unless Nystrom reported as an eligible receiver, that is an illegal formation.

Back on one point I made earlier, looking closely at the video, it looks that Parks is close to being behind the four yard line. If that is the case, it is also illegal in that we only have six on the line of scrimmage.

Did we get away with one there?

[Falconfreak90]

Very interesting, WH. You may have a valid point here. I look at it this way....BG was penalized on a couple bogus PI calls. It evens out...and if it was illegal, BG did get away with one.

[jpfalcon09]

I thought the same thing after the play was ran, I was looking for a flag from the side judge but none came. After watching the play, I noticed Bullock never left the backfield, so quite possibly Nystrom was made legal and Bullock was just in there to block. Maybe I'll ask GB tomorrow at the coach's show.

[Tswam]

Under NCAA and Federation (HS) rules, Nystrom would not have to report. Numbers between 50 and 79 cannot be eligible receivers regardless of where they line up. In the NFL, he would have to report to be eligible. Looked like BG had seven on the line of scrimmage (5 interior linemen, Winovich, Parks). Winovich was ineligible since he was overed on the outside by Parks.

Looked legit to me.

[Dayons_Den]

The boys at Gopher Hole.com were discussing this too, I think they came to the conclusion it was legal as well.

Obviously the play looked confusing to the d-backs as well.

[Warthog]

Numbers between 50 and 79 cannot be eligible receivers regardless of where they line up. ... Looked like BG had seven on the line of scrimmage (5 interior linemen, Winovich, Parks). Winovich was ineligible since he was overed on the outside by Parks.

So are you saying that even though Nystrom has a number in that range and is therefore an ineligible receiver, it is legal for him to line up on the end of the line of scrimmage? I always thought an uncovered tackle was illegal at all levels.

[San Diego Falcon]

Was that the same play they used on a 2-pt conversion to Partridge against Wisconsin 2 years ago?

[Redwingtom]

Toledo got a costly penalty in their game because one of the linemen was too far back from the line of scrimmage giving them too few on the line.

Needless to say, I watched this the rest of the game and saw several other occasions when the ends of their line were in a two point stance with their feet at least a yard or more behind the line of scrimmage but nothing was called again.

Does anyone know what the exact rule is for how far the linemen can be behind the LOS and be considered on the LOS?

Thanks.

[Warthog]

Does anyone know what the exact rule is for how far the linemen can be behind the LOS and be considered on the LOS?

Thanks.

You have to be within one yard of the LOS to be considered "on the line".

[Redwingtom]

Does anyone know what the exact rule is for how far the linemen can be behind the LOS and be considered on the LOS?

Thanks.

You have to be within one yard of the LOS to be considered "on the line".

Which qualifies, your feet, your hands, or your head? One or all?

[Warthog]

Does anyone know what the exact rule is for how far the linemen can be behind the LOS and be considered on the LOS?

Thanks.

You have to be within one yard of the LOS to be considered "on the line".

Which qualifies, your feet, your hands, or your head? One or all?

I believe it is based on where your feet are at.

[factman]

In reality, it is the opinion of the linesman!!