Illegal substitution question

[MD Longhorn]

ploeger - no offense intended, but I would sincerely hope that there IS a correct interpretation of EVERY rule used in your jurisdiction. Having the game called differently from week to week is definitely not something I would categorize as a "neat thing about the human element of officiating and interpreting the rules."

Consistency is crucial - otherwise you have chaos.

[mikesears]

Originally posted by mbcrowder
Sorry --- sometimes I assume that rules like this one are the same in both jurisdictions. I'm in Texas - so all I know is NCAA rules, not NF.

The NCAA rule, incidentally, is 3-5-2-c, which in part simply states "A team may not break its huddle with 12 or more players". It's in the section on Legal Substitutions. I'm surprised NF doesn't have a similar rule - this makes things VERY easy to officiate with regards to plays like the one that started this topic.

I have a hard time remembering who officiates under what rules code. The NF only says that a replaced player must leave the field "immediateley". It is up to each crew to determine exactly what immediately is.

Another one of the 2,523,238,233 differenced

[ploeger76]

In theory I agree with you Mike, however rules like this: “To use a player, replaced player or substitute in a substitution or pretend substitution to deceive opponents at or immediately before the snap or free kick.” are inherently ambiguous. Who determines whether the intent is to deceive the opponent and why is “at or immediately before the snap or free kick.” included in the rule unless there is a possibility of legally using deception as long as it is not “at or immediately before the snap or free kick.”
The NCAA rule is much less ambiguous and therefore easier to consistently apply.

And sometimes we do have chaos and I do like that aspect of football.

[mikesears]

Originally posted by ploeger76
In theory I agree with you Mike, however rules like this: “To use a player, replaced player or substitute in a substitution or pretend substitution to deceive opponents at or immediately before the snap or free kick.” are inherently ambiguous. Who determines whether the intent is to deceive the opponent and why is “at or immediately before the snap or free kick.” included in the rule unless there is a possibility of legally using deception as long as it is not “at or immediately before the snap or free kick.”
The NCAA rule is much less ambiguous and therefore easier to consistently apply.

And sometimes we do have chaos and I do like that aspect of football.

We have to look at all of the rules in combination with the casebook, rulebook, handbook, and Simplified and Illustrated to determine intent. The NF certainly cannot address every substitution situation that arises with a rule. I am going to do some research when I get home to explain my position.

[MD Longhorn]

I think I would nearly always say that an ambiguous or unclear rule that is interpreted differently from official to official is inherently a very bad thing. How do you coach it? How do you coach against it? If we have no consistency on a play like this, then a coach will get away with his trick play one week, and not the next. A defending coach will see it flagged one week, teach his kids what to look for based on that, and then get burned by it the next week.

Football is chaotic - I agree. But the interpretation of the rules should not add to the chaos.

[ploeger76]

Agreed, but that chaos is what leads to better and more refined, less ambiguous rules.
I think Mike Sears is injecting his own philosophical view that there is no room in football for anything that allows a team to use deceit in this manner. I am not sure that is the intention of the rule makers. That doesnÂ’t mean I think Mike Sears is wrong. I could be the one that is wrong. I just think the rule is ambiguous. To me the rule itself implies that deceit can be used if timed properly. Otherwise there is no need for the last part of the sentence.

I also believe both teams should have the benefit of knowing who is participating during any given down. But I put most of that responsibility on the shoulders of the opponent. They need to pay attention.

[MD Longhorn]

Speaking of deceptive, but legal...

2 weeks ago we had an 8th grade coach that loved the deceptive stuff. Most of it worked (although his team got killed), but we blew it on one of them. Deception was good enough that it fooled us.

It was raining. After a timeout, offense comes out and lines up over the ball. R blows it ready when both teams are set (ball was dry when I (umpire) set it, but had gotten a little wet in the interim). QB approaches the center and says - give me the ball, it's wet. The center is a little to the side of the ball, and picks it up quickly and hands it to QB (a legal, if unorthodox, snap - it was smooth and continuous). QB walks casually behind the lineman towards his sideline, yelling "Coach, it's wet".

Unfortunately, R blows his whistle and asks for the ball, throwing it to the sideline for a new one. QB was just past the TE by that point, and likely would have gone for a good gain if we'd not blown it dead.

[STEVED21]

Mike,

I disagree. It's the same as the "where's the tee" play. The ref was right to bloww the whistle. The QB asked for a dry ball. He should get it, not use that ruse to run a play.

[MD Longhorn]

You might have to describe the "Where's the Tee" play to me.

QB didn't ask US for a new ball. He actually didn't ask ANYone for a new ball. He just told the center to give him the ball (which is what he does every time he says "Hut!"), and told his coach the ball was wet. I don't see what rule may have been broken here.

Perhaps this is yet another difference between NCAA and NF, but I can't find anything against this in NCAA.

[Bill Boos]

One of our crews had this play happen this past Friday night. The coach covered it with the crew during the pre-game meeting. The crew allowed the play after sending someone back to the locker room to read up on it. There was no one yelling get off the field. Sub came to huddle, they broke huddle and he went near the sideline. According to the crew, he was wide open and the QB made a bad pass.

We discussed this in our assoc. meeting this week and we are contacting the state office (Alabama) for a ruling. I will post our atates interp when we get it.

[KWH]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ploeger76

If that is the only rule I am not sure I agree with your call. How about if there is a enough time before the snap so it is not “at or immediately before”?

While I believe I understand your point, I also believe you are misunderstanding and misinterpreting what is written in rule 9-6-4c.

In your play, your "pretend substitute" player WAS
attempting to decieve opponents at or immediatly before the snap!
The fact that he may have been performing the same act for 15 to 20 seconds prior to the snap does not get him off the hook! Because, (and you have to agree), since he did the act for 15 to 20 seconds and right thru the snap, he therefore has to have been guilty of: attempting to decieve opponents at or immediatly before the snap!

A somewhat similar play is listed in CASEBOOK 9.6.4 SITUATION B (Please note the ruling)

I hope this helps

[ploeger76]

While I agree with you that the whole intention is to deceive the defense, it would be very difficult for the R to make this ruling. Remember, there were only ten players on the field during the previous play and the WR would already have been in the game. The eleventh player comes in to complete the field not as a substitute.

[Warrenkicker]

Originally posted by mbcrowder
Speaking of deceptive, but legal...

2 weeks ago we had an 8th grade coach that loved the deceptive stuff. Most of it worked (although his team got killed), but we blew it on one of them. Deception was good enough that it fooled us.

It was raining. After a timeout, offense comes out and lines up over the ball. R blows it ready when both teams are set (ball was dry when I (umpire) set it, but had gotten a little wet in the interim). QB approaches the center and says - give me the ball, it's wet. The center is a little to the side of the ball, and picks it up quickly and hands it to QB (a legal, if unorthodox, snap - it was smooth and continuous). QB walks casually behind the lineman towards his sideline, yelling "Coach, it's wet".

Unfortunately, R blows his whistle and asks for the ball, throwing it to the sideline for a new one. QB was just past the TE by that point, and likely would have gone for a good gain if we'd not blown it dead.

This play is definitely illegal. The following play is the "where is the tee" ruling from the case book.

*9.9.3 SITUATION B: From a field goal formation, potential kicker A1 yells, Where's the tee? A2 replies, I ll go get it and goes legally in motion toward his team's sideline. Ball is snapped to A1 who throws a touchdown pass to A2. RULING: Unsportsmanlike conduct prior to snap. COMMENT: Football has been and always will be a game of deception and trickery involving multiple shifts, unusual formations and creative plays. However, actions or verbiage designed to confuse the defense into believing there is problem and a snap isn't imminent is beyond the scope of sportsmanship and is illegal.

This rule was changed after a local team from around here ran a play where the center told the QB that the officials had the wrong ball. The head coach then raised a ball he had on the sideline to indicate he had the right ball for them to use. The center handed the QB the ball in a legal snap that didn't go through his legs. The QB jogged toward the sideline and when he got outside of the players he turned and ran down field for a touchdown. The coach and the QB were flown to New York to be on the Letterman Show. The next year the rule was changed to make that illegal.

[KWH]

Originally posted by mbcrowder
You might have to describe the "Where's the Tee" play to me.

Yuur play IS the same as the "Where's the Tee" play!
The correct ruling is Unsportsmanlike conduct! Source: aka Where's the Tee Play!
NFHS Casebook 9.9.3 SITUATION B

I hope this helps

[ramaris]

You need to consider the situation. In this case B was trying to get an unfair advantage by deception. The play with 10 players would be ok. The player pretending to run off but stopping short is, IMHO, trying to gain an unfair advantage and should therefore be penalized.


Rule 9-6-4

It is illegal participation:

c. To use a player, replaced player, or substitute in a substitution or pretend substitution to deceive opponents at or immediately before the snap or free kick.


IMHO, This rule is written for the type of situation you have described. As they say, the "spirit of the rule" is to penalize this obvious attempt to gain an unfair advantage.

Just my 2 cents.