Couple of interesting plays

[bigwes68]

Had both of these plays in a JV game tonight -- neither one affected the outcome of the game (final was 30-0), but there was some disagreement on my crew on both plays.

PLAY 1: 2-9 for A at B's 15. A1 pitches to A22, who fumbles. The loose ball is muffed several times until B45 recovers at B's 40. He advances to A's 20, where he fumbles and A recovers and is downed. What is the next down? Is A awarded a new series at its own 20, or is it 3rd and Alabama?

PLAY 2: 4-5 for A, somewhere near midfield. A has 11 players on the field. A's coaches begin yelling at A14, "What are you doing, son? Get off the field...etc...etc." He runs toward sideline, stops about a foot from line, ball is snapped, A14 runs a pass route but QB is sacked on the play. Defense did not fall for the blatant deception. After the play, I inform the coach that what he did was not legal and that on Friday night, that would get him flagged for USC (I did not call it because A was already way behind and it was late in the 4th quarter). Of course, "They let us do it last week," and "We've done it in lots of varsity games this year with no problem." The response I loved most from him was, "Peyton does it all the time, I copied it from him." Keep in mind I am from Knoxville and everything Peyton Manning does is gospel to these people.

Thoughts on these two plays?

[Snake~eyes]

1.) 1st and 10

2.) Why did the coach not bring this up in the beginning of the game when you asked him if he had any trick plays? This is illegal and I may have done the same in a blowout game and no advantage was gained.

[whaddayouknow]

1.) 1st and 10... and though you did not asked, the clock starts on the ready.

2.) Agree with USC.

[Gman34]

How will you state your position in 2 with the USC? What's your backup data you provide Coach Fulmer?

[andy1033]

2 is illegal participation not USC.

THis is enforced from prev spot,

Your actions were right in that game

[yankeesfan]

Originally posted by andy1033
2 is illegal participation not USC.

THis is enforced from prev spot,

Your actions were right in that game

how is that illegal participation? that play is totally legal. if the defense cant see the player running to the side or the coach bringing all the attention in the world to him, how is this deception. its not like he stepped quitely off the sidelines and ran up the field. no way a penalty on this. let them play.

[andy1033]

9 6 4 d

to use a player, replaced player or a substitute in substition or pretended substition to deceive opponents at or immd before the sanp is illegal participation

[Edited by andy1033 on Oct 18th, 2005 at 11:10 AM]

[ljudge]

yankeesfan I respectfully disagree with you. Andy is 100% correct in this and I share the philosopohy of "let em play." The coach clearly had this planned and it's a textbook description of how the IP rule is written with respect to it's deception component of the rule.

It's IP all the way.

[dumbref]

Originally posted by andy1033
9 6 4 d

to use a player, replaced player or a substitute in substition or pretended substition to deceive opponents at or immd before the sanp is illegal participation

[Edited by andy1033 on Oct 18th, 2005 at 11:10 AM]

I agree IP - otherwise it is a succeding spot foul. In this case, I think you could call both and enforce both. I doubt I would enforce anything but the IP - but I figure we will have at least one USC on the coach after he goes nutts when we enforce IP and take his well planned TD away!

You do want a flag on the ground at the snap though.

[dumbref]

I have come full circle on this one. After reading case play 9.9.3 sit B, I think this is a dead ball USC and never allow the snap to occur.

[Bob M.]

Originally posted by dumbref
I have come full circle on this one. After reading case play 9.9.3 sit B, I think this is a dead ball USC and never allow the snap to occur.

REPLY: I disagree. 9.9.3B addresses a situation where according to the Comment following the play, action has taken place that makes Team B believe that a snap is not imminent. That's not the case in the original posted play. Once A14 'left' (but not quite) the field, everyone expected the snap.

If you did call it an USC, what would you do if Team A scored on the play? USC calls for succeeding spot enforcement. You would have to award the TD and penalize on the try.

[dumbref]

Originally posted by Bob M.

REPLY: I disagree. 9.9.3B addresses a situation where according to the Comment following the play, action has taken place that makes Team B believe that a snap is not imminent. That's not the case in the original posted play. Once A14 'left' (but not quite) the field, everyone expected the snap.

If you did call it an USC, what would you do if Team A scored on the play? USC calls for succeeding spot enforcement. You would have to award the TD and penalize on the try.

I see your point about the snap being imminent. But I think they are talking about that particular incident. I think the key words are “actions or verbiage designed to confuse the defense” … “is beyond the scope of sportsmanship” and is not limited to one situation. In this scenario, we have action and verbiage designed to deceive the defense and in my opinion it is beyond the scope of sportsmanship – so I see very little difference.

Also notice I said dead ball USC – so the ball never becomes alive eliminating the TD. The foul could also be charged to the brain child of this mess instead of the players.

I get the illegal participation, I just think the USC occurred prior to the snap and should be prevent the play from ever starting.

[mcrowder]

9.9.3b is for the "Hey coach, we need a new ball!" play, and similar variants. A play where they are trying to get the defense to relax, and then snap the ball when they aren't ready.

The illegal sub play is different, and is SPECIFICALLY addressed by the illegal participation rule. No USC here.

[Texas Aggie]

2. NCAA: Live ball foul, 15 yards from previous spot. Not USC.