Illegal substitution question

[ramaris]

Originally posted by 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.

OK then, hes a player... according to 9-6-4c still a penalty.

[KWH]

Originally posted by 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.

Ploeger, Please answer the following question truthfully:

Is the player running toward the sideline (and then stopping just short of the sideline) "pretending to be a replaced player for a pretend substitute in a pretend substitution situation?

Nuff said...

[ploeger76]

I think I already admitted that the whole intention is to deceive the defense. Is that being truthful enough?
Due to the way this scenario was presented it may be easy to make the call on this forum when you have plenty of time to think about it. But I would love to be coaching a team in a game with you as the R. I think it would be possible to set this up in such a way that you would be unsure of what actually happened and therefore unsure of what to call. Plus 90 percent of the RÂ’s out there are more than likely not as astute as those who participate in this forum. As a coach I am willing to take the risk of being able to get away with it at least once. IÂ’ll let you know what happens.

[mikesears]

Originally posted by ploeger76
I think I already admitted that the whole intention is to deceive the defense. Is that being truthful enough?
Due to the way this scenario was presented it may be easy to make the call on this forum when you have plenty of time to think about it. But I would love to be coaching a team in a game with you as the R. I think it would be possible to set this up in such a way that you would be unsure of what actually happened and therefore unsure of what to call. Plus 90 percent of the RÂ’s out there are more than likely not as astute as those who participate in this forum. As a coach I am willing to take the risk of being able to get away with it at least once. IÂ’ll let you know what happens.

It is also possible that youcould run a punt you kicked for a touchdown after the receiving team muffed it. Still doesn't make it right.

Please don't consider using these kinds of plays

[Warrenkicker]

Originally posted by ploeger76
As a coach I am willing to take the risk of being able to get away with it at least once. IÂ’ll let you know what happens.

Just what this world needs. More coaches deliberately breaking the rules just to see if they get caught. Great sportmanship.

[keystoneref]

I have a question for MBCrowder on the play with the center standing to the side and the QB asking for a dry ball. How did you have a legal formation if the center was standing to the side and was not parallel to the goal line? I know a lot of coaches try to come up with inovative ideas but most of the legal ones are already in use.

[Rich]

I threw two flags for illegal substitution Friday night. Both times a substitute came in, the team broke the huddle, and just as I was finishing counting the offense one of the players started to run off. I recounted quickly, verified that the additional player made 12, and threw a flag. Dead ball foul, 5 yards.

Immediately means immediately, on both sides of the ball. I wouldn't hesitate to flag a substitute pretending to come out of the game.

Rich

[KWH]

Originally posted by ploeger76
I think I already admitted that the whole intention is to deceive the defense. Is that being truthful enough?

No! Because after being presented with a preponderance of the evidence that your play is illegal, you still intend on running it.

Due to the way this scenario was presented it may be easy to make the call on this forum when you have plenty of time to think about it. But I would love to be coaching a team in a game with you as the R. I think it would be possible to set this up in such a way that you would be unsure of what actually happened and therefore unsure of what to call.

I will respond to this in this manner:
1) In 25 years of wearing the stripes I've seen many coaches attempt many, many, variations of your play. (By the way if you think your play is original you are sadly mistaken.) Generally the coaches "great trick play" is shot down in the pregame officials/coaches conference, when we ask if they have any trick or unusual plays.
2) It appears you have not been coaching long as even given all the evidence by multiple sources you still have strong feelings that you are correct and are intent on proving us wrong.

Plus 90 percent of the RÂ’s out there are more than likely not as astute as those who participate in this forum.

That's a pretty strong statement! I am very curious as to level you coach at?

As a coach I am willing to take the risk of being able to get away with it at least once. IÂ’ll let you know what happens.

Oh you may get away with it coach, but then that would make you dishonest and worse yet a cheater. I can say this since you are now aware that your "great play" is illegal and not in accordance with the rules.
If you run your play anyway (and it is clear you will) I offer this advice. When the officials inform you of the foul, I strongly advise you not to:
9-8-1b - Attempt to influence a decision of an official!
or
9-8-1c - Disrespectfully address an official!
or
9-8-1d - Indicate objections to an officials decision!

But coach please do let us know what happens!
Until that time we will all be on the edge of our seats...

[MD Longhorn]

I am curious if there is an NCAA rule similar to the one you describe outlawing the "Where's the Tee" play (which would seem to outlaw the play I described as well). I can't find one, but it's a big book.

In answer to the question about the center. He wasn't standing sideways. He was lined up facing the line, but not centered on the ball - the ball was still between his feet, but closer to his right foot. He picked it up and handed it smoothly to the QB to his right.

Another question - if the whole play had been handled with no communications to the sideline (no - "Coach the ball is wet!" dialog), would it be legal in NF. Center hands (snaps to the side) the ball to QB, and no one else moves. QB walks behind his linemen casually. Would that be illegal in NF under the rule you sited?

[mikesears]

Originally posted by mbcrowder
I am curious if there is an NCAA rule similar to the one you describe outlawing the "Where's the Tee" play (which would seem to outlaw the play I described as well). I can't find one, but it's a big book.

In answer to the question about the center. He wasn't standing sideways. He was lined up facing the line, but not centered on the ball - the ball was still between his feet, but closer to his right foot. He picked it up and handed it smoothly to the QB to his right.

Rule 7-1-1:
The snapper may be over the ball but his feet must be BEHIND the neutral zone and no part of his person, other than hand(s) on the ball, may be beyond the foremost point of the ball.


IF any part of his body (except hand(s) on ball) was over the nose of the ball, it is illegal (encroachment). I imagine his helmet probably crossed over the nose of the ball. If the ball was between his feet, it was illegal (encroachment).

Originally posted by mbcrowder
Another question - if the whole play had been handled with no communications to the sideline (no - "Coach the ball is wet!" dialog), would it be legal in NF. Center hands (snaps to the side) the ball to QB, and no one else moves. QB walks behind his linemen casually. Would that be illegal in NF under the rule you sited?

Provided all other criteria are met and everything else is legal (players set, center properly positioned, etc), then I so no problem with it. I believe what makes the "wet ball" play illegal is the verbiage.


[Edited by mikesears on Sep 17th, 2003 at 08:41 AM]

[Warrenkicker]

Originally posted by mbcrowder
Another question - if the whole play had been handled with no communications to the sideline (no - "Coach the ball is wet!" dialog), would it be legal in NF. Center hands (snaps to the side) the ball to QB, and no one else moves. QB walks behind his linemen casually. Would that be illegal in NF under the rule you sited?

No, it would still be illegal if snapper talked to QB. The use of talking to deceive the other team is point. Saying "Hey, this ball is wet" to anyone but an official is not football related. And snapping it while trying to point that out to an official would be illegal too in my mind. Dead-ball unsportsmanlike.

[mikesears]

Originally posted by Warrenkicker

No, it would still be illegal if snapper talked to QB. The use of talking to deceive the other team is point. Saying "Hey, this ball is wet" to anyone but an official is not football related. And snapping it while trying to point that out to an official would be illegal too in my mind. Dead-ball unsportsmanlike.

I took it to mean that no communication was done period. Just a "silent" snap.

If there is verbiage with anyone about the ball being wet and any "acting" on the part of the QB in relation to the ball, I would flag it as illegal (or blow my whistle and stop play and replace the ball).

[MD Longhorn]

All he said to the center was "Give me the ball", which I would take as legal.

[mikesears]

Lets look at these types of plays logically.

Even if he went up and said, "Give me the ball", most defenders aren't going to understand what is going on and aren't going to recognize that the ball is "technically" snapped. Even some officials may not recognize it.

An offense that uses this type of play uses the defenders restraint against them. Defenders will be restrained because they may fear encroaching or commiting a dead-ball personal foul.

If he is acting like there is a problem, then I have a problem with the play and will shut it down.

The offense is getting exactly what it wants if we allow these kinds of plays -- defenders in a quandry if the ball is live or not. They don't know UNTIL the QB takes off and runs. What is sporting or legal about this?

[Bob M.]

Originally posted by ploeger76
I thought the goal of football was to score more points than your opponent while abiding by the rules of the game. I still think the “at or immediately before the snap” language in the rules leaves an opportunity for this to be a legal technique if timed properly. So it would come down to the interpretation of the rule by the officials. I can’t see where a 5 to 10 second passage of time could be considered “at or immediately before the snap”.

REPLY: It really doesn't matter how long the guy's standing there near the sideline because "at the snap" he's still pretending to be a replaced player.