How about we change the play a little. Let's assume that the backs truly ARE confused and the quarterback truly IS changing the routes or play or something. The Referee can hear the confusion. The center is simply anxious to get the snap off because he has been over the ball for a while. One of the backs happens to be in perfect position to receive the errant snap.

In other words, it starts out as a busted play that results in a touchdown.

Let's look at the original play:

After team A (except QB) is fully set, QB A1 motions for all the backfield players (A82, A23, and A43) to come to him (like he is calling an audible or changing all their pass routes or something). After they are all around him and standing still (two beside the QB and one behind him), and QB is facing AWAY from the center, the center snaps the ball to one of the backs standing NEXT to the QB. The back with ball then throws a pass to wide open split end A81 who runs in for a touchdown.

Per KWH:

Was their an illegal formation? No
Was their an illegal shift? No
Was their a substitition infraction? No

So, if you agree with KWH, you've got what? Two backs next to the QB, one behind him and the QB looking backwards. He's not penetrating the center's waist so there's no requirement for hands under center if the ball is snapped from between the center's legs. There's certainly no requirement that he be looking at the center at the snap. The only thing different between this play and your garden variety everyday play that I can envision is that the QB is facing away from the center.

You'd never flag a snap to a back (standing next to the QB) receiving the snap would you? Finally, look at mikesears' twist making this a play where A is truly confused. Would you really flag this for UC per 9-9-3 if A was just confused? How many times have you seen a QB facing a wideout, yelling an audible, not expecting a snap, when the center snaps the ball? Have you ever seen that flagged for UC? After all, if the QB is looking and yelling at his wideout you could say that a snap isn't imminent, right? What is it here that makes a travesty(rendering this "ludicrous or ridiculous") of the game per 9-9-3?

Mike, this is your play, what's your ruling?

Is this one of those dreams where you woke up just prior to giving a ruling? :)

I hate to say it, but I didn't get to rule on the play in my dream (to my knowledge). In the dream, it was more of true confusion and I don't have a tape so I can't verify the team was actually fully set. (LOL)

I asked the question here because initially I would rule the play legal, but others who I have some respect for have brought up valid points about snapping the ball when it is unclear a snap is imminent.

At this point, I feel intention plays a key role in determining the legality of this play. True confusion = no flag but all other pre-snap conditions must be met. Designed = flag. Hopefully a coach tells us about a play like this before the game and we can set him straight.

REPLY: Just a few thoughts;

1. Mike…you had a dream about this play??? You gotta really stop eating that red hot chili right before bedtime!
2. This is the one time in Federation ball that a foul actually causes the ball to become dead. Since you can’t kill it before the snap (who knows what A’s intentions are), your only alternative, if you believe it to be designed to deceive the defense into believing the snap was <u>not</u> imminent, is to shut it down right after the snap.
3. Some have mentioned the possibility of an unintended premature snap. Maybe there was no intent to deceive. But you should be able to figure that out. If this was a designed play, all other A players will immediately be fulfilling their assignments. The huddled backs will break toward predetermined blocking positions; the O-line will retreat into their pass blocking positions; the WR will run his fly pattern. You’ll know it when you see it! If this were just a case of a snapper with an itchy trigger finger, the rest of the offense would probably just be frozen in place—except for the back who caught the ball. He’ll probably look like a deer in the headlights. Most likely the defense will cream him because none of his teammates knew the snap was imminent nor were they in any position to block for him. And for such plays, the chances of this unaware back cleanly fielding this unintended snap are about the same as…Mike dreaming up another such play tonight!

I agree with Kevin and Tom that if this in any way looks like it was designed, it’s a USC foul.

Bingo
 

I think Bob hit the nail on the head on this one with the one little sentence:<b><i>
"You'll know it when you see it!"</b></i>
Good post Bob...


[Edited by KWH on Apr 27th, 2005 at 11:52 PM]

I agree with Bob that you'll know it when you see it. Unfortunately with so many of these hypothetical plays, we all envision it differently. I guess the way I see this is that the snap IS imminent as opposed to the casebook where the player is heading towards the sideline and the defense believes that the snap won't happen until the player returns, sets the T on the ground, runs through the snap count, etc.

If all that's different here is that the QB is facing backwards or appears to be conferencing with his backs when the ball is snapped and he and the backs are behind center, then I don't see much difference than if there's a snap on a silent count or snapped on the first sound. Good play and good discussion.

I am not trying to be smart, I am just curious: what is a "bumarooski?"

That having been asked, I must give my 2 cents on this play...I would rule this unsportsmanlike.

The 'swinging gate' is an unusual formation meant to deceive the defense, but I don't think anyone will argue that it is illegal, and, specifically, it is not meant to make the defense think the snap is not imminent.

As descibed, this play does make it seem like the snap is not about to happen. "Calling an audible or changing all their pass routes or something..." were Mike Sears's words in the original post. To me, this is an attempt to try to show that is snap is not 'imminent.' Again, going back to the OP, the QB's back is toward the center...in this situation, not something the QB would do if he were expecting the snap.

Anyway, that's just my opinion on the play, but it does not seem that a consensus will be reached.

I think that most of us might call it a fumblerooski.

This is a play which was made illegal under NCAA rules back in about 1992 I believe. However it is still legal under NF rules if R is informed of the planned loose-ball play.

In this play the center snaps the ball to the QB who is under center. The center then drops to his knees and just stays there on all fours. The QB takes the snap but then drops the ball back between the center's legs. The QB and backs are running what looks like a sweep to one side of the field. A guard then picks up the ball from between the center's legs and runs with one or two blockers to the opposite side of the field. This play either really works well and a touchdown is scored or it doesn't work at all and there is no gain.

There are several plays like that. Nebraska used one a number of years ago against Missouri. In a punt formation, the center snapped the ball to the upback. The upback placed the ball between his legs and crouched down in a blocking position. The end or flanker came around, took the ball from between the upbacks legs and continued around end for a TD. The Missouri players had no idea where the ball was until the back crossed the goal line.

Supposedly Bum Phillips came up with that one which is why they called it the bumarooski.

Canadian Ruling
 

Touchdown.

...and the teams that try plays like these DO NOT have state championship trophies in the case. They are more then likely 4-6 or worse.

OK, thanks. I had heard of fumblerooski, just not of the bumarooski. I also remember Nebraska ran it for a TD against Miami in the 1984 Orange Bowl (a game which Miami ended up winning for the NC).

How about this example. Quarterback (Dan Marino) motions that he is about to spike football to stop clock. Defense (NY JETS) relax. Marino doesn't spike, throws TD. Dolphins win. Legal play. Virtually every argument that this is an illegal act can be said about this play. I understand that it was an NFL play, it is still relevent. I believe the play in question is legal.

IMHO, these are two different animals.

I wouldn't find this illegal under NFHS rules because the QB doesn't make it seem like the snap isn't imminent. Everyone expects the snap when it occurs.