Are there any rules to prevent a team from first running an offensive play with only ten players on the field and then during the huddle for the next play attempt to deceive the defense by sending the eleventh player (A) into the huddle and making it appear as if they are replacing another player (B). Just as the huddle breaks player B sprints toward the sideline appearing to leave the field but then sets up as a wide receiver.

NFHS Illegal participation
 

Yes, NFHS Rule 9-6-4c makes your play illegal!
<b>It is illegal participation:</b>
<i>To use a player, replaced player or substitute in a substitution or pretend substitution to deceive opponents at or immediatly before the snap or free kick. </i>

<b>Illegal Participation 15 yards</b>

That rule pretty much covers all aspects of your play and others like it...

Re: NFHS Illegal participation
 

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”?

Anyone else have any input on this?

When I was in High School we used to play against a team that used this play a few times a year. They called it their "Sleeper Play".

In this case the WR would be on the field for the previous play, but then he would jog off to the sideline after the play. However he would never leave the field. Instead he would stand at the edge and appear to talk to the coach. The rest of the team would huddle and form at the line of scrimmage in a tight formation without him. However he would already be lined up on the line and they would then throw a quick out pass to him.

I never seen this called for a penalty as they informed the refs before the game that this play would be used.

Legal or not? I think this would be legal. I'd be interested in everyone else's opinions though.

The reason I suggested first having a player sit out on the initial play and going with ten players is I was told there was a rule that required everyone to participate in the huddle if you had a huddle. I don’t see how this can be illegal unless there is a rule against only having ten players on the field. How can a R call this illegal participation? Who is the illegal participant? The WR who was already in the game on the first play or the one sent in as the eleventh player. If “that rule pretty much covers all aspects of this play and others like it...” it would be impossible to ever get the eleventh player back in the game.

If the player is pretending to be a replaced player, this is ILLEGAL.

Are you sure that is the correct interpretation of the rule? If it were as simple as that why does the rule itself include the ending "at or immediately before the snap or free kick?" Why would the rule not just say "To use a player, replaced player or substitute in a substitution or pretend substitution to deceive opponents."? Or better yet as simple as "If the player is pretending to be a replaced player, this is ILLEGAL."

Who determines if he is pretending? The WR is just going to his assigned location on the field for the upcoming play.

What do the rest of you think?

mikesears is exactly right. If you have the illustrated book it shows almost exactly your example on page 81. It is illegal to use a substitution situation to deceive the opponents at or immediately before the snap. By running the player toward the sideline like he was being replaced then you are using that as a deception. The goal of football is to deceive the opponent as to who has the ball and where it is going. Not who is playing.

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”.

If player B breaks the huddle with everyone else, I'm not flagging this unless we have coaches or players adding to the deception with "Hurry up, get off the field," or similar comments.

My reason - if he's really a 12th player and he breaks with the huddle, the flag goes right then. This rule is why the defense can and should assume that anyone breaking with the huddle is part of the next play.

However, if this guy leaves before the huddle breaks, and then acts as though he's leaving, and then doesn't leave, we have a flag. To me, this is what the deception rule was intended to prevent.

I agree with this totally. If the team breaks a huddle and he goes over there, I've got no problem with that. If he breaks early and hides out near the sideline like he has been replaced, that is illegal.

BTW, can you find a rule that says a team cannot break the huddle with 12 players? (It isn't in the NF rulebook).



[Edited by mikesears on Sep 16th, 2003 at 01:43 PM]

I believe a casebook example exists of this kind of deception. When I get home, I will look this up and share it. I am without my rulebook today :(

There is a case where 3 players come in, 4 go out and one of the four stops short of the sideline in his position. I believe the ruling states that the official must judge if this was a pretend substitution or not.




My philosophy (and I strongly believe the rules intention) is that the both teams should have the benefit of knowing exactly who is participating during any given down. How else do we explain many of the other rules about substitutions?

That is the neat thing about the human element of officiating and interpreting the rules. There is no absolute correct interpretation to every rule so it allows coaches the opportunity to take risks and see what they can get away with. That adds variety and excitement to the game.

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.

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.

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 :)

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.

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.

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 doesn’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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Re: NFHS Illegal participation
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ploeger76

Quote:

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 <b>WAS</b>
<u>attempting to decieve opponents at or immediatly before the snap!</u>
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, <b>he therefore has to have been guilty of:</b><u> attempting to decieve opponents at or immediatly before the snap!</u>

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

I hope this helps

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.

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.

"Where's the Tee"?
 

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

I hope this helps

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.

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

It's not difficult for me at all! And I am an R.
 

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...

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 R’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. I’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 :(

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

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.

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

Go for it coach! Proves us all wrong!
 

No! Because after being presented with a preponderance of the evidence that your play is illegal, you still intend on running it.
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.
That's a pretty strong statement! I am very curious as to level you coach at?
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...

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?

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).


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]

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).

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

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?

REPLY: It really doesn't matter how long the guy's standing there near the sideline because "at the snap" he's <u>still</u> pretending to be a replaced player. <img src=http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/teach.gif>