7 or more people have to be on the line - so they are linemen, that is where the word came from. That was my thinking.

But the original claim was that "technically" a TE is a lineman.

I used the word "technically" because I knew the intent of the original question was about tackles, guards, and centers. Maybe I should have said "TE's are linemen in several ways, and they accrue positive statistics."

Do the formation rules as they apply to eligible receivers actually do anything with respect to how the game is played? I guess they cover the cases of plays run with more or less than the traditional 5 "offensive linemen"?

Do the formation rules as they apply to eligible receivers actually do anything with respect to how the game is played?

Without the rules, there would be occasional plays designed as passes to the center or guard.

I am shocked and disappointed that a burgeoning crapfest over Noam Chomsky has degenerated into a technical discussion of line formations in football.

Oh Primer, Where Art Thou?

Do the formation rules as they apply to eligible receivers actually do anything with respect to how the game is played?

Without the rules, there would be occasional plays designed as passes to the center or guard.

Right. In most cases where you hear about this being a factor, it makes little or no functional difference - for example in the Niners' first play in the Superbowl they derived no specific advantage from breaking the rules, but the rules provide a sort of structural foundation for the way offenses function such that without them things would look very different.

So is it that if the slot receiver (or tight end or h-back) is on the line and covered by the split end, then he's an ineligible receiver?

Yes. If there are more than 7 players on the LOS, a player other than the tackles will be covered up and ineligible. That's why you see outside receivers step back after a player motions to the line of scrimmage.

It's not just that the receiver is ineligible, although he would be in this case. If the receiver wears a number that would ordinarily make him eligible (anything outside of 50 to 79) covering him up results in an illegal formation even if no pass is thrown. The 49ers in the Super Bowl were not penalized for an ineligible receiver downfield, they were penalized for covering up the tight end on the line of scrimmage.

Without the rules, there would be occasional plays designed as passes to the center or guard.

There is a quirk in the rules where when in punt formation (which is determined by the depth of the snap) the eligible receivers need not be defined by their position on the line. At least, there is some high school coach who designed an entire offense based on confusion of eligible receivers where the QB would set up for a ten yard snap. IIRC, he was trying to sell (literally) his offensive scheme to other HS coaches around the country.

there would be occasional plays designed as passes to the center

If it was good enough for Hawkeye and Spearchucker in M*A*S*H, it's good enough for me.

7 or more people have to be on the line - so they are linemen, that is where the word came from. That was my thinking.

But the players referred to as TE either as regards their role or position closest to the tackle, does not have to be on the line of scrimmage.

Without the rules, there would be occasional plays designed as passes to the center or guard.

Teams could also line up the center and guards and have everybody else crash the line. I believe this was the reason the rule was first put in place. Teams would have a bunch of people crashing into the line with a head of steam and players would be injured.

This article explains the history.

[53,55] I should have added clarification of:

Why can't the rules be "The guy who snaps the ball and the 4 guys on each side of him are ineligible receivers"?

Why can't the rules be "The guy who snaps the ball and the 4 guys on each side of him are ineligible receivers"?

I think you can play with an unbalanced line if you want. The center has to be one of the 5 middle guys, but not the middle guy.

7 or more people have to be on the line - so they are linemen, that is where the word came from. That was my thinking.

But the players referred to as TE either as regards their role or position closest to the tackle, does not have to be on the line of scrimmage.

They are referred to as a TE, but I think in a literal sense they are considered a back (i.e. they can be in motion at time of snap etc.) and not an "end" when they don't line up on the line of scrimmage.

I think you can play with an unbalanced line if you want. The center has to be one of the 5 middle guys, but not the middle guy.

Does he even have to be in the middle 5? Couldn't he be on the end and be an eligible receiver?

They are referred to as a TE, but I think in a literal sense they are considered a back (i.e. they can be in motion at time of snap etc.) and not an "end" when they don't line up on the line of scrimmage.

Again, you are creating some semantic claim ("The seven players on the LOS are all linemen")and elevating it over how we understand the game as it is played. We don't change how we view of Aaron Hernandez based on where he lines up and he has no obligation to be on the line because we consider him a "TE." Can you imagine a play by play call of "Tight End Hernadez goes in motion, becomes a back. Lloyd steps to the line of scrimmage and is now a lineman." Nobody sees the letters "OL" besides a player's name and thinks anything other than "one of those five big guys who are ineligible receivers."

Again, you are creating some semantic claim ("The seven players on the LOS are all linemen")

Yes! my initial post was mostly just semantic snark.

We don't change how we view of Aaron Hernandez based on where he lines up and he has no obligation to be on the line because we consider him a "TE."

Yes we do. That is why he is sometimes referred to as a hybrid TE/WR. If he started exclusively lining up in the slot and/or split out wide, people would stop considering him a tight end. If he was used more out of where the running backs normally start, he would be considered a running back. He is considered a TE now because the most often place he lines up is right next to a tackle (or the other tight end). You are right, it does not matter whether he is one of the 7 on the line or a back a few steps when calling him a tight end (except in a literal/historic sense).

Can you imagine a play by play call of "Tight End Hernadez goes in motion, becomes a back. Lloyd steps to the line of scrimmage and is now a lineman."

That happens all the time when people describe plays:
"Mike Vrable, in at tight end, caught the touchdown in the flat..."
"Refrigerator Perry was used as a running back in the Super Bowl..."
"Tebow was lined up as a wide-reciever for the trick play, but Sanchez' pass flew 30 feet over his head..."

Nobody sees the letters "OL" besides a player's name and thinks anything other than "one of those five big guys who are ineligible receivers."

The tight ends presumably practice sometimes with the rest of the line, and are coached by offensive line coaches (as they also practice with the receivers). They are sometimes considered part of the line, thus the need for the phrase "interior lineman" to differentiate between the tight ends and the real porkers in between.

Yes we do. That is why he is sometimes referred to as a hybrid TE/WR.

My point was more about how we view him play by play. Yes, you hear people say that you could him consider him part of the WR corp. Nobody, though, is changing what they think he is play to play. And even more so, nobody changes what they consider him DURING the play, so you examples of Perry and Vrabel miss the point.

They are sometimes considered part of the line, thus the need for the phrase "interior lineman" to differentiate between the tight ends and the real porkers in between.

No you don't. You need two letters: "OL." Find an example of "offensive lineman" referring to a player who predominantly lines up in an eligible position, which is what tight ends do.

No you don't. You need two letters: "OL." Find an example of "offensive lineman" referring to a player who predominantly lines up in an eligible position, which is what tight ends do.

Are you disputing that the term "interior lineman" exists?

Here's from wiki for "lineman" that refers to the tight end as part of the offensive line:

The interior offensive line consistis of the center, who is responsible for snapping the ball into play, two guards who flank the center, and two offensive tackles who flank the guards; NFL rules require that a team have all five of these interior linemen on the field for every offensive play. In addition to the interior line, a full offensive line may also include a tight end outside one or both of the tackles.

My point was more about how we view him play by play. Yes, you hear people say that you could him consider him part of the WR corp. Nobody, though, is changing what they think he is play to play. And even more so, nobody changes what they consider him DURING the play, so you examples of Perry and Vrabel miss the point.

Can you re-phrase the point then, because I don't know what you mean.

Does he even have to be in the middle 5? Couldn't he be on the end and be an eligible receiver?

*sigh*
Did we learn nothing from M*A*S*H?