Welcome to Auburn Eagle Message Boards!! The best FREE community site for Auburn fans on the internet!! It has come to our attention that you have not yet logged in or registered for a FREE account. Even though we allow guests to browse the boards, there are features and sections that can only be accessed by registering/logging in. The FREE account includes optional Auburn sports e-mail updates, the ability to participate in contests, and much more!! It also allows you to communicate with the members of the boards both publicly and privately. Register now to join the best Auburn community site and get rid of this annoying message!!
RegisterLogin
Auburn Eagle
Auburn Coaches Building for the Future!!
September 03, 2010, 06:12:52 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: AUBURN EAGLE MESSAGE BOARDS ARE EXCLUSIVELY FOR MEMBERS OF THE AUBURN FAMILY
 
Pages: [1]
Print
Author Topic: POLL: Eligible Receiver or not? You make the call...  (Read 265 times)
rockfordpi
Fierce Tiger
***
Posts: 115


« on: March 05, 2010, 02:47:06 AM »

You make the call, brought to you by the American Duck Hunters Association... 

Working out of each of the following formations, #73, Lee Ziemba, our starting Left Tackle, goes three yards downfield and catches a forward pass. In Which of these formations, if any, is #73 Lee Ziemba an eligible reciever.


Formation 1


     73   79   50  66  77  80         81

87              18          75
           
             44



Formation 2


          84 68 79 50 66 77              80         

                       18                     82  73
               44   
Logged
aukooze91
Fierce Tiger
***
Posts: 161


Ed Dyas, Auburn FB & K, 1958-1960


« Reply #1 on: March 05, 2010, 06:20:22 AM »

I assume he would have had to report in to the ref due to his jersey number.  Nevertheless, imo he is eligible in formation 2 and not 1.
Logged

"We've got a chance to do something great." - Cam Newton.
AuburnSoldier
Supreme Tiger
****
Posts: 325



« Reply #2 on: March 05, 2010, 08:44:14 AM »

I say eligible in both.  He is uncovered in the first- 80 is ineligible.  He is in the backfield in the second, so he should be eligible there.  I could be wrong on both.
Logged

"...I believe in Auburn, and love it."
walker77
Ultimate Tiger
*****
Posts: 841



« Reply #3 on: March 05, 2010, 09:09:36 AM »

Have to communicate to ref that he will be eligible...# issue...

Then, eligible in both...

That is my final answer... Smiley
Logged

Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today & forever!
GoCrazyAuburn
Ultimate Tiger
*****
Posts: 1023



« Reply #4 on: March 05, 2010, 11:48:07 AM »

yea the issue is his number, those 70 numbers are linemen numbers so he wouldn't be eligible.
Logged
EasyBake15
Ultimate Tiger
*****
Posts: 516


Bama can suck it (no homo)


« Reply #5 on: March 08, 2010, 07:03:31 PM »

With Kodi back there in this formation, Ziemba better be blocking. A WR who can't throw throwing to a lineman is not the best combination haha
Logged

I got ice in my veins, blood in my eyes. Hate in my heart, love in my mind. I've seen nights full of pain, days of the same. You keep the sunshine, save me the rain.
Jansterz71
Ultimate Tiger
*****
Posts: 3168


WAR DAMN EAGLE


« Reply #6 on: March 08, 2010, 07:21:25 PM »

yea the issue is his number, those 70 numbers are linemen numbers so he wouldn't be eligible.

^^^^^This^^^^^

even if you talk to the ref befor game It doesn't matter, he does not have a recievers jersey number
on
Logged

STLEAGLE
Ultimate Tiger
*****
Posts: 1225


« Reply #7 on: March 08, 2010, 09:49:16 PM »

He is eligible in both as long as he reports to the official, which makes someone else in the formation ineligible.
Logged
Jansterz71
Ultimate Tiger
*****
Posts: 3168


WAR DAMN EAGLE


« Reply #8 on: March 08, 2010, 11:33:39 PM »

He is eligible in both as long as he reports to the official, which makes someone else in the formation ineligible.

Nope
Logged

AUMed
Tiger Cub
*
Posts: 36


« Reply #9 on: March 09, 2010, 11:34:58 AM »

He is too close to the center on the first formation.. I'm pretty sure you can't be an eligible tackle ever... in that I mean that if D. Adams lined up at tackle in the formation he wouldn't be eligible either.

The second one he is eligible if he reports to the umpire/ref.
Logged
Feldenak
Fierce Tiger
***
Posts: 123


« Reply #10 on: March 09, 2010, 11:55:17 AM »

Rule 1, section 4: players with numbers between 50-79 and 90-99 are never eligible receivers
Logged
Jansterz71
Ultimate Tiger
*****
Posts: 3168


WAR DAMN EAGLE


« Reply #11 on: March 09, 2010, 12:28:28 PM »

Rule 1, section 4: players with numbers between 50-79 and 90-99 are never eligible receivers

this
it does not matter if you talk to ref, jeez
Logged

rockfordpi
Fierce Tiger
***
Posts: 115


« Reply #12 on: March 09, 2010, 06:18:37 PM »

Ok, now that the poll is closed, here is the answer. While only 5% of the people who voted in the poll got it right, several people posted with the correct answer.

#73 in not eligible in EITHER formation (or any formation), regardless of whether he checks in with the ref or not.
Players wearing numbers 50-79 are always ineligible. This is in spite of the fact that we had #73 Lee Ziemba line up at wideout or flanker on numerous occasions last year.

These results were much better than that in the previous poll regarding 5 men on the Line of Scrimmage when only 10 players are on the field.

I will post another question when I have more time...


Logged
walker77
Ultimate Tiger
*****
Posts: 841



« Reply #13 on: March 09, 2010, 06:40:53 PM »

Good questions so far, keep them coming...
Logged

Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today & forever!
STLEAGLE
Ultimate Tiger
*****
Posts: 1225


« Reply #14 on: March 10, 2010, 11:51:23 PM »

THANKS FOR EDUMACATING US!! WELL DONE AND  WAR EAGLE! TOUCHDOWN AUBURN!! WAR EAGLE BANANA DANCE! WAR EAGLE!!
Logged
Pages: [1]
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF