Illegal substitution to ice the kicker

[voiceoflg]

Cincinnati vs. Duke in the Belk Bowl. Bearcats are out of timeouts and Duke is lining up for a 53 yard field goal. Either right before the snap or right as the snap occurred (I don't recall which) Cincy sends out a 12th defender, prompting a whistle and a flag. As the whistle is blown the ball is already snapped and kicked, and the ball goes through the uprights. But with the play blown dead, no points are awarded. The yards were marked off, but the next snap, the kicker misses the 48 yard attempt. Cincy's benefits from the intentional penalty.

As I read the rule, the officials got it right. Blow the play dead as there were 12 men on the field when the snap was imminent or had just occurred.

So, I have two questions.

1. What is the NFHS correlation? Can a team without timeouts run a 12th defender out to "ice" the kicker?

2. Should the rule be changed? I would like to see the play be played out and let the offense choose to let the play stand or accept the penalty...within reason. If the whole team runs out on the field, then blow the play dead, obviously.

What are your thoughts on this? I'll hang up and listen.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by voiceoflg

Cincinnati vs. Duke in the Belk Bowl. Bearcats are out of timeouts and Duke is lining up for a 53 yard field goal. Either right before the snap or right as the snap occurred (I don't recall which) Cincy sends out a 12th defender, prompting a whistle and a flag. As the whistle is blown the ball is already snapped and kicked, and the ball goes through the uprights. But with the play blown dead, no points are awarded. The yards were marked off, but the next snap, the kicker misses the 48 yard attempt. Cincy's benefits from the intentional penalty.

As I read the rule, the officials got it right. Blow the play dead as there were 12 men on the field when the snap was imminent or had just occurred.

So, I have two questions.

1. What is the NFHS correlation? Can a team without timeouts run a 12th defender out to "ice" the kicker?

Who cares? They can just encroach on the neutral zone if they want to kill the ready-for-play. Or take out their mouth guards.

[HLin NC]

Would be the same result under NFHS. The philosophy is to kill it if noticed as a dead ball foul to prevent it turning into Illegal participation with a 15 yard penalty.

You could change it but all B/R has to do is jump offside as Robt. said so there is more than one way to skin a cat.

You can't legislate every conceivable potential inequity out of the game. Cincinnati just out coached Cutcliffe there.

[voiceoflg]

Thanks for the information. And I can't believe my brain flatulence. Of course there are other ways to get the penalty. You can tell I'm in off-season form.

Thanks again.

[jchamp]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

Would be the same result under NFHS. The philosophy is to kill it if noticed as a dead ball foul to prevent it turning into Illegal participation with a 15 yard penalty.

You could change it but all B/R has to do is jump offside as Robt. said so there is more than one way to skin a cat.

You can't legislate every conceivable potential inequity out of the game. Cincinnati just out coached Cutcliffe there.

I missed the game, so I don't know if there was other conversation to indicate it was intentional. I think we've all seen plenty of special teams plays with confusion regarding who is supposed to be on the field that, without further knowledge, it is plausible that there was legitimate confusion.

I "took" a point off the board in a game this year by waiting until VERY late to verify my 12-man B count on a try. On the subsequent play after enforcement, the kick was blocked. In hindsight, I think in the future if it took that long, I would allow a snap to occur since the penalty is the same (half the distance) in either case in my old situation. The reason I mention that is because if it is almost simultaneous with the snap, I would probably now tend to allow the play to occur and give A the 15 yards + re-try opportunity. I would do THAT, because as you mentioned, there is a much less unsporting way to ice the kicker.

And, as provided for in the rules, if they continue to ice the kicker as such, WH can consider it an unsporting act and take necessary action, including the award of a score.

[HLin NC]

The FG attempt was just before halftime. Even with the 5 yd penalty, Duke missed the second attempt. Cutcliffe was interviewed as the teams left the field and he said it was an unsporting way to ice the kicker. That got the discussion started.

Probably true but under our new Schiano Method of "all's fair in love and war", smart move by Cincy.

[maven]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

The FG attempt was just before halftime. Even with the 5 yd penalty, Duke missed the second attempt. Cutcliffe was interviewed as the teams left the field and he said it was an unsporting way to ice the kicker. That got the discussion started.

Probably true but under our new Schiano Method of "all's fair in love and war", smart move by Cincy.

The only remedy I can think of would be the nuclear option of treating this as an unfair act and penalizing the offending team 15 rather than 5 (or, the global thermonuclear option of awarding a score). If one crew did that, coaches might not think it's such a clever tactic.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by jchamp

I "took" a point off the board in a game this year by waiting until VERY late to verify my 12-man B count on a try. On the subsequent play after enforcement, the kick was blocked. In hindsight, I think in the future if it took that long, I would allow a snap to occur since the penalty is the same (half the distance) in either case in my old situation.

Actually no, it's not. K could take the point and have the 15 yards assessed on the subsequent kickoff.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by maven

The only remedy I can think of would be the nuclear option of treating this as an unfair act and penalizing the offending team 15 rather than 5 (or, the global thermonuclear option of awarding a score).

But to be consistent you'd have to do the same with the other ways B could intentionally foul to prevent play.

It is an unfair act when A is trying to get off a quick play and B does something illegal to prevent it, especially if it looked like the quick play would've gone for a TD (such as if team A had a huge numbers advantage at the point of attack, or an uncovered receiver). I presented such a scenario decades ago to the sec'y of NCAA's rules committee and he thought it'd be good only for USC, not equitable penalty.

[JasonTX]

I would have rather them let this be a live ball illegal participation. I suspect the snap could have taken place during a recount of the players. In NCAA both Illegal Substitution and Illegal Participation are 5 yard penalties.

[Scooby]

Would we be having this discussion if Duke would have missed the first field goal and made the second? Cincinnati gave Duke an opportunity to try the field goal 5 yards closer. Duke missed.

And if you believe that the rule should be changed in this situation do you believe that if a defender is beat by a wideout and tackles him while the ball is in the air, saving a touchdown, should there be a greater penalty? the defense is benefiting from a foul. In high school it is only a 15 yard penalty and a 1st down.

[maven]

As I think more about this issue, it's not clear to me that the advantage gained is unfair. When a team takes a time out to ice a kicker, it costs them something (the time out). In this case, they fouled, which also cost them something, namely yardage. Why is that less fair than taking the time out?

As for fixing the rules: one at a time. Rome wasn't built in a day.

[HLin NC]

I guess its perceived to be unfair because on the subsequent attempt, K missed. However, as you correctly stated, K gained yardage on the penalty. They could have opted to attempt an offensive play, (not likely on this specific play), scoring a TD instead. Would people wonder if the penalty is unfair to R because otherwise they only gave up 3 points in that instance?

Some folks here occasionally point out what they think of as flaws or inequities in the rules. Much like loss of down is accurately the loss of the right to repeat the down, the offended team has the right to repeat the down. It is still their responsibility to complete their play successfully. Otherwise the rule code would just authorize just handing them points, which I guess the thermonuclear option would allow. I just doubt that crew would ever be working CFB again afterward if the did.

[Rich]

The first kick never happened, since the kicker kicked a dead ball.

[Tom.OH]

Originally Posted by Scooby

Would we be having this discussion if Duke would have missed the first field goal and made the second? Cincinnati gave Duke an opportunity to try the field goal 5 yards closer. Duke missed.

And if you believe that the rule should be changed in this situation do you believe that if a defender is beat by a wideout and tackles him while the ball is in the air, saving a touchdown, should there be a greater penalty? the defense is benefiting from a foul. In high school it is only a 15 yard penalty and a 1st down.

Unless you call intentional DPI and make it a "30" yard penalty.