Too much football recently? I actually dreamed this play last night.

Game situation didn't matter in the dream so I will just say, 1/10 at B's 30 yard line.

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.

Ruling?

What a way to come up with a "stump-the-ump" play.

Well, you're not using a substitution to deceive and there is no false start and the formation is legal although unusual. TD for A81.

Every thing looks legal here Mike. I don’t recall there being a rule that dictates in which direction a player in the backfield must face. So if everyone set for the required 1 second before the snap, I say “Dream On Brother”

I disagree..

Remember those case book words, something to the effect of actions or verbage that make the defense beleive that the snap is not imminent is beyond the scope of sportsmanship, etc. ect.

The actions of the backs standing around pretending to have a conversation fits this to a "tee".

"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 a problem and a snap isn't imminent is beyond the scope of sportsmanship and is illegal."

This play sounds like it has elements of "unusual formations" and elements of "a snap isn't imminent" in it. Too close to call, hope it happens to someone else so they can post their call and the results here.

I would lean towards this being an unusual formation versus non-imminent snap because in the play from the casebook, there is conversation where they "forgot the tee" and "I'll go get it" like a snap won't happen until they return from the sideline with the tee. To me that is of the non-immnent snap design versus this play where they are all huddled around the center and there's a quick snap, as opposed to walking away from the center. I don't think I'd flag this myself.

Theisey, I see where you're coming from but from what I recall that had to do with a player actually yelling out "where's the tee, where's the tee" in hopes of purposely deceiving team B into thinking the snap is not imminent which was I <b><i>think</i></b> was legal up to a few years ago (or some version of it). I realize that's what they're doing here but they're not crossing the line so to speak with those extra comments. I find it difficult to disagree with you but the other side of me is saying it's a legal shift and unusual formation. And...how can you blame a creative coach?

15-yards for Unsportsmanlike conduct charged to Head Coach
 

...<b>actions</b> or verbiage <b>designed to confuse the defense into believing there is a problem and a snap isn't imminent</b> is beyond the scope of sportsmanship and is illegal."

In the sample play, The QB beckons 3 other players to his postion, has them circle around him (forming a mini-huddle), pretending to be changing the play, with the sole intent of luring the defense into think the play is not imminent, catching the defense sleeping, and snapping the ball.

Gentlemen, this play is no different (in intent) than the "Where's the Tee" play described in <b>CASE BOOK 9.9.3 SIUATION B:</b>

RULING:
1) If the head coach reviewed this "trick or unusual play" in or pre-game meeting I would have told him it is an illegal action and not to run it. Hopefully, that <b>should be</b> the end of this issue.
2) If the play is run, the ruling is simple. Shut the play down prior to (if possible) however more likely immediatly after the snap.
The head coach is charge with an unsporstmanlike conduct foul. This then, <b>would be</b> the end of the issue.

The NFHS does not condone these types of plays!
The NFHS can not present any clearer message on this type of <b>crap football</b> than the COMMENT at the end of <b>2004 CASE BOOK 9.9.3 SITUATION B</b>

Shut all types of this <b>crap football</b> down! It is not a part of the NFHS game!

There are a number of fake plays in football - the swinging gate, the lob pass from kick formation, the "bumarooski", etc. Just because a play is designed to trick the defense does not make it illegal or crap football.

In the play as described, the QB motions the other backs to shift into a new formation - we see this all the time. After the backs have legally shifted, the ball is snapped and the play proceeds as normal.

If the coach told me about this play before the game, I might warn him that the QB better not call out any misleading comments to the other backs to get them to come in to the mini-huddle but, other than that, I don't see anything illegal here.

Re: 15-yards for Unsportsmanlike conduct charged to Head Coach
 

If there are players standing directly behind the center I would not assume a snap is not imminent. If, like the case book says, a player leads someone to believe he has to go the sideline to get a tee and return to the field before they can snap the ball then the defense can reasonably assume a snap is not imminent. Let your state athletic assoc. review this one.

JDLJ-

The "swinging gate", the "lob pass from kick formation", and the "bumarookskie" are all designed football plays.

In the situation we are addressing the "action" prior to the snap is <b>specifically designed to deceive the defense into thinking the snap is not imminent!</b> That is why it is an "Illegal action".

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

You seem to think that bacause the quarterback did not "<i>call out any misleading comments to the other backs to get them to come in to the mini-huddle</i> the activity is legal. Your thinking is incorrect as the wording in the case book clarly refers to <b>actions</b> or verbage.

I don't know if you will admit to it or not but the intent of the entire action we are discussing <b>is to decieve the defense into believing the snap is not imminent.</b>
You know it, I know it, both coaches know it, and the little old wrikled-up prune-faced man walking the visitors sideline knows it.
The ruling then is simple: UC - 15 yards

<b>If you still disagree, could you please provide me with a better an example of CASE BOOK 9.9.3 COMMENT that does not involve any verbage!</b>

Thank you

KWH,

I understand where you are coming from and I don't disagree with you completely. I think we both agree that there is nothing outside of 9.3.3 that would be illegal. Rule 9.9.3 covers any act which makes a travisty of the game. Now the question is, does this play make a travesty of the game?

I tried taking out the original comments on what the QB was thinking and concentrate on what actualy happens as seen from the eyes of the official.

In the case book coverage of 9.9.3, we know that A is trying to confuse B with his banter about missing a tee, etc. Without the banter, the play in the case book would be completely legal - it's the misleading comments that makes it illegal. In the play we are discussing, there are no comments but there are some actions and I guess the question is, are these actions goofy enough to make a travesty of the game? I'd have to see it for sure but I'm seeing it as a shift into a new formation and unless there is more than I picture in my mind, I don't think it's a travesty.


PS. Couldn't a quick count snap be considered as leading a defense into thinking a snap is not imminent?

Yes it does, in that the act itself <b>IS </B>intended to decieve the defense into thinking the snap is not imminent.No, not true at all, in fact the banter is NOT the issue!
Here is another example of crap football:

QB A1 is walking from the huddle slowly towards the center (he is the only player not set) while looking over the defense. A1 stops to look around at the offensive backfield, stops, turns, and motions to the sideline (giving the beckoning signal) to send a player in all the while pointing to a vacant spot in the backfield. Coaches on the sidelines are jumping up and down and pointing. QB A1 then schruggs his shoulders in disgust and begins walking slowly backward toward his team box. Players on defense begin to relax and some d-lineman even stand up! With 10 of the offesnvie players still montionless, the center snaps the ball to an up back who throws a pass to a wide open wide reciever who advances into B's endzone.

YOU MAKE THE CALL!!!

No!

Perhaps, in order to determine if an act falls into the catagory we are discussing one need only ask ones self,<b>
Can the act itself be considered a "football move"???</b>
If the answer is no, penalize it...

...A snap to a back standing next to the QB...

Looks like we can argue this one to death and not come to any consensus. I've read nothing to alter my initial ruling and remain steadfast on this as an illegal play contrived by some coach (even if it was a dream) to do one thing... get an easy score using an unfair offensive advantage. Which by NF guidelines is a UC foul prior to the snap.

Short and sweet
 

People accuse me of be too wordy and too long winded, therefore,
How 'bout I try this statment:

<b>I agree with Theisey 110% </b>