Cal 3, USC 17 (Final)

[methomps]

OK, got around to watching the tv tape. The ref made the right call. There were two receivers to the left side of the formation. The problem is that both of them were up on the line. This means that the inside, slot receiver was covered up and thus ineligible. You can see right before the snap that the slot receiver is trying to wave at the outside receiver to take a step back.

When the ball is snapped, both players go down field. The problem is that #3 (the slot receiver) was ineligible.

 

[BB73]

OK, got around to watching the tv tape. The ref made the right call. There were two receivers to the left side of the formation. The problem is that both of them were up on the line. This means that the inside, slot receiver was covered up and thus ineligible. You can see right before the snap that the slot receiver is trying to wave at the outside receiver to take a step back.

When the ball is snapped, both players go down field. The problem is that #3 (the slot receiver) was ineligible.

I haven't seen this play, but that's the same call that was made to wipe out Wiscy's 2-point conversion near the end of their game against TSUN a few weeks ago.

 

[jwinslow]

OK, got around to watching the tv tape. The ref made the right call. There were two receivers to the left side of the formation. The problem is that both of them were up on the line. This means that the inside, slot receiver was covered up and thus ineligible. You can see right before the snap that the slot receiver is trying to wave at the outside receiver to take a step back.

When the ball is snapped, both players go down field. The problem is that #3 (the slot receiver) was ineligible.

I take your reality and substitute my own! :p

btw, you best get on the beard train.

 

[Fungo Squiggly]

I take your reality and substitute my own! :p

btw, you best get on the beard train.

Done!

 

[Tlangs]

OK, got around to watching the tv tape. The ref made the right call. There were two receivers to the left side of the formation. The problem is that both of them were up on the line. This means that the inside, slot receiver was covered up and thus ineligible. You can see right before the snap that the slot receiver is trying to wave at the outside receiver to take a step back.

When the ball is snapped, both players go down field. The problem is that #3 (the slot receiver) was ineligible.

The call should have been "illegal formation" and not "ineligible down field".

Ineligible down field is when you are in a legal formation but someone goes too far downfield. Usually on a screen that gets blowed up or a QB roll out where the o line starts blocking downfield and the QB doesnt run it.

damn idiot pac 10 refs always making the wrong call nshit.

 

[gracelhink]

The call should have been "illegal formation" and not "ineligible down field".

Ineligible down field is when you are in a legal formation but someone goes too far downfield. Usually on a screen that gets blowed up or a QB roll out where the o line starts blocking downfield and the QB doesnt run it.

damn idiot pac 10 refs always making the wrong call n[censored].

No, Methomps (and the refs) were right. An illegal formation is penalized when there are not enough players on the line of scrimmage. Minimum number is 7, but in this case there were 8. Eight on the line is legal!
However only the players on the end of the line are eligible. The covered receiver was not eligible, but ran a route downfield and so the proper call was "ineligible down field".