[Bob M.]

REPLY: I believe that the only equitable way to rule in this play is, as Jim S. says, a multiple foul against Team B. I’ve included a play below to indicate why. However, I think there is room in the Federation rules to have a different interpretation based upon where that B team member is when he influences the play. Was he on his side of the neutral zone at that time, or was he still on his opponent’s side of the NZ? Some thoughts:
1. The B team member who enters the field late is a substitute since he’s entering to fill a player vacancy (2-30-15). This is a foul for illegal substitution simultaneous with the snap (3-7-6). Probably not a lot of argument there.
2. Normally when an entering substitute participates in a play, he becomes a player by definition (2-30-15). But he remains a substitute and cannot become a player until he makes it to his side of the neutral zone (2-30-15 – last sentence) So, if he were to participate in the play while still on his opponent’s side of the NZ, he’s technically a substitute participating in a play—an illegal participation foul according to 9-6-3. However, if he makes it to his side of the NZ and only then participates in the play, he becomes a player by definition 2-30-15 and is no longer governed by 9-6-3. In such a case, none of the restrictions in 9-6 are violated and there is certainly room to say that his participation at this point is legal.

But let’s go back to the original question and assume his participation occurs before he makes it to his own side of the neutral zone. Consider this play:

PLAY: A, 3-5 from B’s 30. B20 realizes that his team only has 10 players. He runs onto the field at the 50 and the ball is snapped. QB A10 drops deep to throw. B20 runs toward him and tackles him at B’s 47. RULING: I think you must call this a multiple foul—IS and IP. The IP would be enforced from the end of the run (coincidentally also the spot of the foul). The result would be A’s ball 3-7 from B’s 32. Not a great deal for A especially since declining the penalty would make it 4th and 22! But…the IS foul would be enforced from the previous spot, making it A, 1-10 from B’s 25. You simply can’t allow the IS to “become” IP. A must be given the benefit of accepting the IS penalty. Otherwise, B gains a huge advantage by fouling. Comments??

By the way, one of the Points of Emphasis in the 2004 rules is “Substitutions and Participation.”

[Note: I had to edit this since I had a "brain cramp" when coming up with the results of the IP emforcement.]

[Edited by Bob M. on Jun 16th, 2004 at 02:06 PM]