New Illegal Substitution Rule

[ljudge]

Gee, I'm on a roll here. I'll preface this one with I do NOT have my 2005 rules book just yet. But something else in the football guide to consider...

1st and 10 for A on it's own 10 yardline. Prior to the snap B11 counts the defense and incorrectly thinking he's the12th player, runs off to B's sideline at A's 20 yardline. The same player then realizes his team is a player short and runs back onto the field.

This is ruled as a dead-ball illegal substitution foul. Why? He's still a player by rule and there's nothing to say he can't leave the field and return. He was never replaced and therefore never changed his status from player to something else. But again, I don't have my 2005 book so perhaps something changed that I wasn't aware of. The 9-yard marks thing I thought applied to A only.

[Theisey]

When you get your 2005 books, you'll see this act is now treated differently.

I don't have my books yet, but I do have the "Redding's Guide to NFHS football" and it's spelled out that this year a player can no longer step off the field and then return.
It's a dead ball Illegal Sub foul if done.

[Warrenkicker]

3.7.3 SITUATION A: B11 mistaken believes he is his team’s 12th player and leaves the filed before the snap (a) on his opponent’s sideline, or (b) on his sideline and enters his team box. B11 then discovers his error and returns to the field on his team’s side of the neutral zone before the snap. RULING: Legal in both (a) and (b). B11 is a player, not a replaced player nor a substitute. If done intentionally to gain an advantage, it is illegal participation foul or it could be an unsportsmanlike foul. If B11 returns to the field after the snap in either (a) or (b), it is a live-ball foul for illegal participation. (9-5-1f; 9-6-4d)

Unless there is a misprint here somewhere there is no foul for B11.

The rules are, however, very clear this year on any player entering the field during a play and that now being illegal participation.

[Bob M.]

Originally posted by Warrenkicker
...The rules are, however, very clear this year on any player entering the field during a play and that now being illegal participation.

REPLY: This restriction is true for players, substitutes, and replaced players. One thing to note about this change is that in the 2005 Rule Book and Case Book in the comments, it clearly says that, "In order to be considered to have entered, the player, replaced player or substitute should be viewed by the official as attempting to become part of the play." So, if a substitute steps out onto the field at the fifty to watch his teammate cross the goal line, it's NOT a basic spot illegal participation foul. Given this interpretation by the Fed, anyone want to offer an opinion of how to treat this? My own opinion is "I didn't see it." And chances are pretty good that if all officials are doing their jobs, no one would see it being as the play is fifty yards away from the 'infraction.'. But just for kicks, what is the technical infraction...if indeed there is one?

[MJT]

Originally posted by Bob M.

REPLY: This restriction is true for players, substitutes, and replaced players. One thing to note about this change is that in the 2005 Rule Book and Case Book in the comments, it clearly says that, "In order to be considered to have entered, the player, replaced player or substitute should be viewed by the official as attempting to become part of the play." So, if a substitute steps out onto the field at the fifty to watch his teammate cross the goal line, it's NOT a basic spot illegal participation foul. Given this interpretation by the Fed, anyone want to offer an opinion of how to treat this? My own opinion is "I didn't see it." And chances are pretty good that if all officials are doing their jobs, no one would see it being as the play is fifty yards away from the 'infraction.'. But just for kicks, what is the technical infraction...if indeed there is one?

New case book play 5-1-2-b covers this Bob. If a substitute enters the field during the down, but does not influence the play, touch the ball, etc... it is a PS enforcement for IP.

[JDLJ]

Case Book 5-1-2 b is on on the list of Case Book errors that have been circulated on the various sites because it conflicts with the comments on pare 81 of the rule book which says that in order for a player to have entered...(he) should be viewed...as attempting to become part of the play.

I guess there is a difference between a sub entering the field during a live ball and attempting to become part of the play but still not touching the ball and not influencing the play and a sub just wandering on the field to get a better view. If he's trying to become part of the play it would be IP. If he's just wandering on to the field it could be a violation of 9-8-1 i Nonplayer unsportsmanlike conduct by nonplayer for being on the field except as a substitue or replaced player.

[Bob M.]

Originally posted by MJT
...New case book play 5-1-2-b covers this Bob. If a substitute enters the field during the down, but does not influence the play, touch the ball, etc... it is a PS enforcement for IP.

REPLY: Thanks Monte...I had seen that, but it was also unofficially listed as a case book error. They call it a non-player foul but then specify previous spot enforcement (???). How does that jive with 10-4-5c? Now...in that case play, they cite rules 9-5-1a (for the taunting). They also cite a non-existent 9-6-1a. Personally, I can't find anything in 3-7 (Substitution) or 9-6 (Participation) prohibiting this. Yeah...it was there last year as a non-player foul (3-7-1). But that went away when they reorganized 3-7 and moved the infraction to 9-6. So, as best as I can tell, there is no longer anything in the rules expressly forbidding a player/sub from entering the field with no intention of participating, let alone specifying a previous spot enforcement. Unless, I'm missing something, case play 5.1.2B is just another 'shoot-from-the-hip' interpretation with no real rule support. Can you find anything in the rule book to back up case play...and the enforcement?

I guess that technically, JDJL is correct that you could penalize it under 9-8-1i. But under nothing that I can find is it ever a live ball/previous spot foul.

[Edited by Bob M. on Jul 26th, 2005 at 04:04 PM]

[MJT]

Originally posted by Bob M.

REPLY: Thanks Monte...I had seen that, but it was also unofficially listed as a case book error. They call it a non-player foul but then specify previous spot enforcement (???). How does that jive with 10-4-5c? Now...in that case play, they cite rules 9-5-1a (for the taunting). They also cite a non-existent 9-6-1a. Personally, I can't find anything in 3-7 (Substitution) or 9-6 (Participation) prohibiting this. Yeah...it was there last year as a non-player foul (3-7-1). But that went away when they reorganized 3-7 and moved the infraction to 9-6. So, as best as I can tell, there is no longer anything in the rules expressly forbidding a player/sub from entering the field with no intention of participating, let alone specifying a previous spot enforcement. Unless, I'm missing something, case play 5.1.2B is just another 'shoot-from-the-hip' interpretation with no real rule support. Can you find anything in the rule book to back up case play...and the enforcement?

I guess that technically, JDJL is correct that you could penalize it under 9-8-1i. But under nothing that I can find is it ever a live ball/previous spot foul.

[Edited by Bob M. on Jul 26th, 2005 at 04:04 PM]

I emailed our state guy earlier and he referenced 5-1-2-b, but I don't know if he was aware of the casebook error. He said he would seek clarification when he went to the national meeting in Indianapolis on the 18th and 19th, but I did not here anything back yet. It would be nice to know.

A PS enforcement make sense so you cannot have a 50 yard penalty, but we do need clarification. However, if he is running in at the 50, isn't he trying to get in to "become part of the play?"

[Bob M.]

REPLY: MJT...I called Steve Hall from New Hampshire (SRH on McGriff's) to see what was said at the meeting in Indianapolis. His flight was cancelled because of weather nd he got stuck in DC and never made the meeting. I mentioned this play and he said that he also had it noted as an error. He also agreed that as the rules are currently written, this is neither illegal substitution nor illegal participation. His recommendation was the same as mine: "I didn't see it coach." However that said, if the player is running on the field attempting to participate, it's then clearly illegal participation. The situation I mentioned was one where a sub steps on the field to get a better look at the action with no intention whatsoever of participating. Last year this was an illegal sub (non-player) foul with succeeding spot enforcement. This year that's all gone.

[cowbyfan1]

My state included the NFHS/referee guide 2005 which goes over the new rules. One does not make sense to me. On page 2 it gives play 1. First and 10 for Aon its own 10 yard line. Prior to the snap B11 counts the defense and comes up with 12 players. He runs off the fieldto B's sideline at the A20. He then realizes that they are short a player and runs back on the field before the snap. During the play A1 runs for 5 yards. They said this is a 5 yard dead ball foul enforced from the suceeding spot. HUH??? If it is a dead ball foul, one that occured before the snap, then how is it enforced from the suceeding spot. It should have been blown dead and enforced from the 10, thus making it 1st and 5 from the 15. Am I off on this and missing something?? Or am I right and the publication is wrong?

[Topshelf]

Originally posted by cowbyfan1
My state included the NFHS/referee guide 2005 which goes over the new rules. One does not make sense to me. On page 2 it gives play 1. First and 10 for Aon its own 10 yard line. Prior to the snap B11 counts the defense and comes up with 12 players. He runs off the fieldto B's sideline at the A20. He then realizes that they are short a player and runs back on the field before the snap. During the play A1 runs for 5 yards. They said this is a 5 yard dead ball foul enforced from the suceeding spot. HUH??? If it is a dead ball foul, one that occured before the snap, then how is it enforced from the suceeding spot. It should have been blown dead and enforced from the 10, thus making it 1st and 5 from the 15. Am I off on this and missing something?? Or am I right and the publication is wrong?

All dead ball fouls are enforced from the suceeding spot. However, in this case I do not see the foul. The B player remained a player the entire time, so you cannot call illegal substitution. The only thing you could possibly call would be IP if you ruled that the player left the field to gain an advantage, and that would be a 15-yard live-ball foul. Again, see 3.7.3 Situation A as noted on a previous post.

[Dale Smith]

Cowboyfan1
With the rule change this year that says that a player can not withdraw from the field of play and then return prior to the snap, the play that you described results in a dead ball foul as soon as B11 returns to the field. The use of the term “succeeding spot” is correct as the ball should not have snapped. The ball was not legally snapped therefore you do not have a previous spot. Think of it this way, the succeeding spot is established when the ball is declared dead at the end of a play. It remains the succeeding spot until the ball is legally snapped to start the next play, then it becomes the previous spot. Basically your thinking is correct, the dead ball foul results in a 5 yard penalty giving A the ball 1 and 5 at the A15 yard line. I think this is a semantic thing. If they would have said enforce the penalty from the spot of the snap that probably would have made more sense, but would have been wrong because there should not have been a snap.

[Tundra Ref]

I agree with Warrenkicker that B11 leaving and coming back before the play is no foul, but possibly an IP for trying to confuse the opposition. What if B11 doesn't make it within the 9-yard marks on his way back before the snap? I still think we have nothing because B11 was within the 9-yard marks during the dead ball period.

[Theisey]

The nine-yard mark criteria is for A-players and does not nor ever did apply to any B-player.

[Topshelf]

Originally posted by Dale Smith
Cowboyfan1
With the rule change this year that says that a player can not withdraw from the field of play and then return prior to the snap, the play that you described results in a dead ball foul as soon as B11 returns to the field.

What rule change are you citing?