Sleeper Play

[OverAndBack]

After studying the rule book last night, I think I'm going with illegal snap on that. In addition to 2-38.2, I'd cite:

7-2-1 3...Following the ready-for-play and after touching the ball, the snapper shall not:
d. Following adjustment, lift or move the ball other than in a legal snap.

[The Roamin' Umpire]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

I believe they said it's the first play of the game. So I don't think they were expecting them to take a knee.

I would like to download this, too, but it's a .swf file with some javascript that calls for a certain file, so good luck. If anybody is geeky enough to figure it out, I'm sure we'd all love to be able to grab it.

If you use Firefox as your web browser, there's an extension called VideoDownloader that will let you do this. Take a look at https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/2390/

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

After studying the rule book last night, I think I'm going with illegal snap on that. In addition to 2-38.2, I'd cite:

7-2-1 3...Following the ready-for-play and after touching the ball, the snapper shall not:
d. Following adjustment, lift or move the ball other than in a legal snap.

While the snap could probably be judged as failing the requirements of "quick and continuous" (2-39-2) I think you'd be better off ruling this as Unsportsmanlike (15 yds vs. 5 yds).


Theisey - I thought the video said this was the first play from scrimmage.

[OverAndBack]

I imagine you could do that, too. Deliberate intent to deceive and all that. I've just been trying to find some leg in the rule book to stand on on that.

[kdf5]

I saw that on Real TV sometime back and cringed at the commentator's remark that it was legal. Flag it and don't look back.

[Grey Hare]

Not only could this be considered an illegal snap, but look at all of the "movement" by the other team members once the QB goes "in motion"! At the very least this is a penalty for illegal shift, not to mention the obvious unsportsmanlike situation. Also, I sure hope the wings were anticipating the QB taking a knee, but even so, the wing at the top of the screen was WAY TOO CLOSE.

GH

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Grey Hare

Not only could this be considered an illegal snap, but look at all of the "movement" by the other team members once the QB goes "in motion"! At the very least this is a penalty for illegal shift, not to mention the obvious unsportsmanlike situation. Also, I sure hope the wings were anticipating the QB taking a knee, but even so, the wing at the top of the screen was WAY TOO CLOSE.

GH

The QB was not in motion. He had the ball.

[waltjp]

From Redding (Pg 104) -

Unfair Acts

Unfair acts may include sideline personnel or others subject to the rules interfering with the ball or a player during play, acts which make a travesty of the game, repeated half-the-distance fouls to prevent a score or other deliberated delays, or any other such act not specifically covered by the rules. The referee has broad authority to enforce any equitable penalty, including awarding a score, for unfair acts. He may also declare a forfeit for repeated delays (9-9 Pen).

(clipped)

Football has traditionally been a game of deception and trickery. There is both legal deception, e.g., faking a kick, and illegal deception e.g., hiding a ball under a jersey. Also, multiple shifts, unusual formations and creative plays are accepted practices. However, actions or verbiage designed to confuse the defense into believing there is a problem and a snap is not imminent, are not legal. This includes pretending to have a problem with the play that has been called, an equipment problem with a shoe, the ball or kicking tee, etc. and feigning an injury. A good rule of thumb to follow is that if an act appears to be unfair, it probably is contrary to the rules.



(Emphasis added)

[Grey Hare]

Rats..............
I guess you are right about that. I was looking too hard for something other than USC.

GH

[Jim D]

Because it clearly is an unfair act under rule 9.9.3, it can be called unsportsmanlike but penalized from the previous spot since this would be the equitable ruling. Reddings points this out.

[mcrowder]

I have no audio on the thing for some reason... so I'm assuming there was some sort of, "Coach, this is the wrong ball" or something of the sort. If not, this is no more illegal than the play where Andre Ware walked away from under center hollering at the WR, and the ball was snapped directly to "RB" David Klingler, with Ware sprinting down the field uncovered.

So assuming something verbal, I also have USC.

But those calling this snap illegal are WRONG in both codes. In fact, there is a team that snaps the ball like this quite often (usually to a shotgun QB though). The snap must be continuous, and backward - this snap was exactly that, and was actually quite common long ago.

[Jim D]

9.9.3 Situation B talks about the difference between creative plays and illegal acts. It says "...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."

To me, that tells me the Andre Ware play you describe would be illegal under NFHS rules.

PS - I didn't have audio either but watch the coach on the sideline holding up the "correct" ball for everyone to see.

[kdf5]

I'm not sure if the snap question is settled or not but the snap doesn't have to go through the snapper's legs, right? He can snap the ball from a sideways position as long as it meets the rules. Otherwise, this is still an illegal play.

[Warrenkicker]

Well I have the answer as to why this play was allowed.

This play is the play which caused the rule to be change a few years back to add the use of verbage as USC. This school is about 45 miles from me and plays 8-man which is why the field is shorter and narrower as well as there being fewer players out there. I have worked many games at it since then but it was not me working that game. I'm not even sure who the crew was. Before the game the coaches requested the officials look at this play and determine if it would be legal. They showed them the snap and explained what would happen. The officials determined that everything about it was legal to them. This was the second half kickoff and the crew knew that play was coming. They were only going to run it after a COP because of the "wrong ball" thing. The QB and the coach were on Letterman that next week because it was such an odd play. This got it enough national attention that the NF decided to make sure it would never be run again.

The snap was a continuous backward motion but it could easily be said that the ball didn't leave his hand immediately. And that year the use of verbage such as they did was not expressly prohibitted.

Today we know it is all illegal and now, as it is said, you know the rest of the story.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

I have no audio on the thing for some reason... so I'm assuming there was some sort of, "Coach, this is the wrong ball" or something of the sort. If not, this is no more illegal than the play where Andre Ware walked away from under center hollering at the WR, and the ball was snapped directly to "RB" David Klingler, with Ware sprinting down the field uncovered.

So assuming something verbal, I also have USC.

But those calling this snap illegal are WRONG in both codes. In fact, there is a team that snaps the ball like this quite often (usually to a shotgun QB though). The snap must be continuous, and backward - this snap was exactly that, and was actually quite common long ago.

You could clearly hear someone, the narrator said it was the center, yelling that they had the wrong ball.