I was watching the tail end of the Ravens-Browns game tonight, while waiting for the coverage to come on about my flag and was confused by the line-up on some of the plays.
A couple of times I thought it was a punting situation, because there was a player well back of the o-line. But watching the play, I realised that it must have been a running back, because the QB would take the snap, and in some cases the running back ran forward to take a hand-off. Other times he ran diagonally forward, I guess to be available as a receiver if the play developed.
Why do they line up like that? In the CFL, the RB lines up beside the QB, so the hand-off is a lot quicker. If it’s not a hand-off, he would get forward to receive more quickly as well.
It always seemed to me that the RB could take the hand off with a running start, never occurred to me there might be another way. One thought:
The CFL field is a fair amount wider, so there is a greater chance of the more spread-out offensive line being penetrated. As a result, there is more scrambling, and less of a stable pocket.
In US football, I suppose the RB could get in the way of the QB in that tight pocket.
I don’t quite understand your question. But I’m thinking is why the running back is BEHIND the QB?
That’s been standard practice in football for years. If the QB is under center, the running back is behind him. That gives the RB a chance to find a hole in the line to run through.
I think you are describing an “I” formation. There are different backfield formations (for a variety of reasons, to set up different blocking schemes, and a variety of handoffs, pitches, sweeps, and play fakes).
Some running backs have like being in a deep I formation (as much as seven yards behind the line of scrimmage) so that they can build up speed before hitting the line, and also use the second or two during acceleration to pick the hole they will run toward depending on how the blocking is developing. I seem to remember Ricky Williams and Earl Campbell (two big, hard-hitting guys who could develop substantial momentum from a seven yard dash to the line) favoring this approach.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear, but you’ve all worked it out - yes, the RB was well behind the QB, about where I would expect to see the punter stand in the CFL, farther back than when the QB is in the shotgun position.
I’m not sure that the motion rule is the reason for the difference, BobT - when the RB is beside the QB in the CFL, he doesn’t move until the ball is snapped. I even saw one game this season where the QB stepped sideways and the RC took a direct snap. The officials didn’t allow it, but the coach was arguing afterwards that it is an allowed play and was going to raise it with the league - don’t know what came of it.
Huerta88, doesn’t that increase the chances of a bad hand-off if you’ve already got up a head of steam?
dqa, that may be it - everything is more of a scramble in the CFL.
If you were indeed watching the tail end of that game, or another game at the very end, you may have been seeing something different, which is simply a “protect” formation when the (currently-winning) offensive team is trying to run the clock out. In this case one (or more) running back(s) may well be even more than seven yards back in a “Deep I,” with the goal being not for the RB to take a handoff at all, but to serve as a “backup” in case the intended play (QB takes snap and kneels) got botched, the snap was mishandled, the QB fumbled, etc. Things can get very dangerous then, and the hope is that if the ball comes loose, the “deep” RB will either recover it or tackle any defender who recovers it so that the impending victory isn’t snatched away. If you want to antagonize any N.Y. Giants fans, I seem to recall an unfortunate instance years ago involving QB Joe Pisarcik.
As to the risk of botched handoffs – it does exist, always, of course, and taking the ball while running quickly poses problems. But so do play action (faking a handoff to one RB before handing off to another or passing, with the ball often being jabbed quite convincingly into the decoy RB’s belly), reverses, and pitches. While I thought the Big 8 style option offense was comparatively primitive, it took amazing amounts of practice for QBs to successfully pitch out to trailing RBs while they’re both running laterally and pursued by defenders – I was always surprised those exchanges weren’t botched at least a third of the time, but they weren’t/aren’t.
The more I think about it, the less sense that answer of mine makes. There’s a lot of empty space on a US football line of scrimmage - it’s not like we’re playing in a hockey rink. It’s the offense that determines how long the offensive and defensive lines will be, because if the defense doesn’t put its players in opposition to the positions of the offense, the ball can be run right through. So I don’t think the idea of a “tighter” pocket in the US is valid.
I believe the more wide open game, with more scrambling, is due to the fact that a larger field and only three downs makes passing much more attractive.
Not only that, but when in the shotgun formation there is no quarterback. Sure there is a guy who is the usual passer and usually takes the snap, but he’s not really the quarterback except when positioned up close to the center. I.e., he’s supposed to be closer to the center than the halfback(s) who is/are closer than the fullback.
Not only that, but when in the shotgun formation there is no quarterback. Sure there is a guy who is the usual passer and usually takes the snap, but he’s not really the quarterback except when positioned up close to the center. I.e., he’s supposed to be closer to the center than the halfback(s) who is/are closer than the fullback.
And how does the CFL rule on fake plays. Suppose you have a punter back to make a punt and snap it to an up man who runes it in a fake. Or is that never done in the CFL?
Having the RB line up behind the QB helps keep the defense guessing which way the play will go for as long as possible. “Any time you make a football player think, you’re handicapping him” - Bear Bryant.
Hmmm - we may have a terminology difference here. What I’m calling “shotgun” is when the QB lines up directly behind the centre, about 5 yards back and alone. It’s a clear indication that there will be a passing play, because the running back is nowhere near the QB. The centre makes a long snap and the QB throws. I’m not sure what you mean when you say there is no QB?
By “snap it to an up man” do you mean a forward pass? That’s allowed - the punter can do forward passes instead of kicking. The Edmonton Eskimos tried that in yesterday’s game, on third & 20, with just over a minute to go to the half, on their onw 40. The receiver didn’t make the catch, and the ball turned over on downs, so Saskatchewan, at that time scoreless, got it on the Esks’ 40, and got a touchdown just before the half. Widely credited with being the turning point of the game, as argued in this article.
Goofy play, in my opinion, for that stage of the game and that field position, but saw in the paper today that an Eskimo player is quoted as saying that they’ve run the fake several times in the regular season, and this was the first time it didn’t work.
NFL and college teams will call running plays when they’re in the shotgun formation. Not all that often, but you have to have some to keep the defense from completely going all out on pass defense.
Delayed handoffs to the running back can be quite effective against an overeager defense.
As for snapping the ball to an up man, what happens sometimes in American football is that the QB will be back in a shotgun formation and a RB will be next to him. Sometimes, the snap will go directly to the RB and he will take off. Or the ball could be snapped to a RB in motion.
In yesterday’s Patriots-Rams game, the Patriots lined up for a field goal and the ball was snapped directly to the kicker Adam Vinateri who lofted a short pass to a wide open receiver whom the Rams thought was just meandering off the field.