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>

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.

I agree with Mike Sears...

REPLY: In your play, contrary to the one under discussion, everyone knew that the snap was coming. They just didn't know what Marino was going to do once it happened. If you think that Marino's suckering them into believing that he was going to spike the ball constitutes some sort of illegal deception, would you say the same about him dropping back to pass and then handing the ball off on a draw? I really believe your example is a horse of a different color and really can't be used as a valid comparison...IMHO.

Bob M is correct!
I couldn't have said it better myself!

I'd forgotten all about that play until this post and always thought that Marino showed about as much class and heart as the Cowardly Lion. "What have they got that I ain't got? Courage! What a wuss.

REPLY: Speaking of this Marino play, do you remember when Randall Cunningham began to take a knee and then rose to throw a TD pass over a defense who believed he was ending the half? Note: If in an NCAA game, he wouldn't get away with it; the ball would have been blown dead because he "...simulated placing a kneee on the ground." In a Federation game, it's a legal TD.

Or more likely an inadvertant whistle.

Just curious as to why that is? I'm not a fan of Marino or anything, just wondering why you think that.

Also, I wish to second the reasoning above, as to why the 'anticipated spike' is legal (defense believed the snap was imminent, just not the "type" of play).

I have an USC on this intentional or not. Would you flag holding if it was unintentional? Did the Offense do something that makes it look like the snap is not going to happen? YES! Flag it.

It was 'yeller', chicken, womany, spineless...If he did that on a playground, he'd get beaten up. It was like this team I played once in a basketball league. They were up two points at half, then came out in the second half and played a four corner stall. Gimme a break. Play the game like a man. I'd flag Marino for USC before I'd flag the original play in this post.

IMO, the actions would indicate that a snap was NOT evident, so we will have a flag if I am the R. Good comments!