Things that only happen on Wednesdays and Thursdays
 

I think we got this quasi-right but I am looking for opinions. . . . . .

First off, not by choice but I worked my first JV football game of the year yesterday night. (We are going into the fourth week of the season in Michigan) I have worked 5 varsity games but my schedule and conflicting issues with girls BB games on Thursday nights made last night the first night of the year I got to work a four man crew.

We usually count on our BJ to confirm the # of defensive players, so in four man L and LJ have to get it done. I, (L) got my count done as the 11th team B player was hustling off the field. Team A had the ball around Team B's 10 yard line and it was like 2nd and 6. Once this 11th man go about 15 yard from his coaches and on the other side of the LOS his coach yelled at him to get back into the play. I thought for a second and flagged and stopped the play about 2 seconds after team A had snapped it. We called a deadball penalty for encroachment.

This was kind of bugging me (probably because I have never seen/read about it before). If the kid would have just ran off to his own side line would you still have encroachment if he got off the field before the snap, or could you have a liveball simultaneous with the snap penalty for IS? Looking for any comments.

The way your play worked out, I'd say you did right.

But had he not run back on the field, most officials (especially on Mon-Thurs) would not call him for encroachment, and many (self included) will even step forward a couple of steps to ensure the kid trying to get off the field is out of our vision.

Encroachment cannot be the call until they are on their side of the NZ. This would be an IS foul, if you call it, and IP they participate.

Definatly not encroachment as MJT said. You had either IP or IS depending on what the kid did.

While I understand what you guys are saying, I disagree slightly. It is hard to tell from the post exactly how the kid came back on the field. Bear with me a second here. I do agree it could be called IS or IP but if you go with the possibility that the player didn't become a non-player, ie didn't complete the "substitution" you could then go ahead and call the encroachment...

Why not encroachment, guys? He's a defensive player, in the offense's backfield.

And if he's the 11th guy, and he wasn't on the offense's side of the ball, you wouldn't have IP or IS. Surely your rules for IP and IS don't say anything about whether a player is on his side or the opponent's side of the ball - and since if he was on his side of the ball, this would be legal, then I can't see how IP or IS applies when he's on the wrong side of the ball.

Believe it or not...

NFHS 3-7-5 states "An entering substitute shall be on his team's side of the neutral zone when the ball is snapped or free kicked." Failing to do this is a 5-yard live-ball foul for IS.

Now, on this particular play, I'd say the person in question is NOT a substitute, since he was never replaced. Therefore, in the original situation, I concur with the encroachment call.

Note that under NFHS rules, substitutes cannot commit encroachment - 7-1-6 (the encroachment rule) specifies a "player."

I think I would have encroachment here.

The player in question was the 11th player, and was never replaced, and never made it to the sideline, so I still have him as a player, not a substitute.

This meets the definition of encroachment in Rule 2.

He's not an "entering substitute," so he doesn't meet 4-7-5.

He's not "unsuccessfully attempting to leave the field," as he's trying to get back to his side of the neutral zone, so he doesn't meet 4-7-4.

He never "withdrew and re-entered as a substitute," because he never left the field and/or was never replaced, so he doesn't meet 4-7-3.

I picture this as the RFP is blown, he starts hustling off, then starts hustling back. If that's the case, he already was on his team's side of the neutral zone after the RFP was blown, and you're allowing him to try to get back. If he's not back on his team's side, I think it's encroachment at the snap.