[dumbref]

Originally posted by Bob M.

REPLY: I disagree. 9.9.3B addresses a situation where according to the Comment following the play, action has taken place that makes Team B believe that a snap is not imminent. That's not the case in the original posted play. Once A14 'left' (but not quite) the field, everyone expected the snap.

If you did call it an USC, what would you do if Team A scored on the play? USC calls for succeeding spot enforcement. You would have to award the TD and penalize on the try.

I see your point about the snap being imminent. But I think they are talking about that particular incident. I think the key words are “actions or verbiage designed to confuse the defense” … “is beyond the scope of sportsmanship” and is not limited to one situation. In this scenario, we have action and verbiage designed to deceive the defense and in my opinion it is beyond the scope of sportsmanship – so I see very little difference.

Also notice I said dead ball USC – so the ball never becomes alive eliminating the TD. The foul could also be charged to the brain child of this mess instead of the players.

I get the illegal participation, I just think the USC occurred prior to the snap and should be prevent the play from ever starting.