Quote:
Originally Posted by ump33
First of all, I fully agree with those that believe this play should have been shut down per 9-9-5. Also, I remember the play that HLinNC described and at the following season's State Clinic the call by the officials was fully supported by our State Supervisor.
Now for those that do not support 9-9-5 ... At the very least, I believe they are in an Illegal Formation ... As soon as CoCo the holder starts his "motion", there is no longer a holder in position to recieve the snap per 2-14-2 and they are no longer in Scrimmage Kick Formation. With #12 as the snapper, they do not have 5 linemen 50-79 on the LOS.
Read 2-14-2 & 7-2-5 carefully and note that both rules state "at the snap".
|
Thank you for posting the link to the rule book! looked forever for a copy online.
Ok after reading the rule and re-watching the play. Im one of those people who would let it go off. I dont like bringing too much subjectivity to "travesty of the game" it is a slippery slope to go down.
It is stupid yes, but to me it doesnt rise to the level of travesty and I thought it was stupidly clever. It can be argued that it wasnt meant to deceive any more than a receiver running a long route on a draw play. But I digress, this is why subjective things like this in the rule book are tricky. Everyone has a different line.
I will go look closer at the numbering exception point borught up above. That may be a way to kill the play on a rule that is black and white.