REPLY: If you decide to flag it, wait for the snap just to make sure that it was not an honest attempt to get something sorted out, and then blow it dead, Football Fundamental be damned. That's the way that the NF Case Book play 9.9.3 Situation B calls for it to be handled. You just can't allow the play to count with succeeding spot enforcement.

It's not USC - it's Unfair Acts, which does kill the play, and enforcement is from the original LOS.

This play is too close to the "snap isn't imminent" play that I wouldn't let it go. I don't know if I'd get supported or not but I'm not letting it go.

...into believing there is a problem and a snap isn't imminent...Just to get to the end of 9.9.3 B. In the play that started this discussion you have a snap and you have a live ball. I agree, had this all happened prior to the snap but in fact it did not.

What are you saying? Foul or no foul?

Don't let it go. It's illegal ... just not for the reason you say it is. It has nothing to do, in fact, with the rule you are citing. It is still illegal. Our only RULE backing is the God rule... but our intent backing comes straight from NCAA bulletins, clinics, FED rulings etc. This is the same as the "wrong ball" play. Illegal. Kill it, flag it, walk it.

Back to my original comment. What you have is a legal snap, a live ball and a defense that is asleep. Yeah it does not look pretty, but once the ball is live...

So you, by yourself, would disregard NCAA and FED memorandum that tell you to kill and flag this play? Interesting decision on your part.

This is a garbage play and it stinks. I would agree it should not be allowed to start but if started, kill it. Flag the coach for UC and hope it was his second of the night.

I hope some of our colleagues with contacts with the football people can take some time to list several of these plays and forward them on to the NF for inclusion in next years interpretations or better yet in the case book.

Maybe even send them all to Ref Magazine and get their take on them. Not that they are always correct, but one would assume they contact the NF for rulings as well.

NCAA I don't care about. Where is the FED memo?

If you are refering to the case book play then yes I agree, kill the play. If you're refering to the play that began this discussion...What do you have if you blow your whistle when there is a live ball?

In this case I would have made the judgment JUST BEFORE the snap to kill it and I don't really care when the whistle sounds.

The rule is there so that EVERYONE knows the ball was snapped purposefully, that is so that everyone knows the ball is alive. Without the positive knowledge of knowing it is a live ball, the defense is stuck between a rock and a hard place. It has nothing to do with them being asleep.

Go back and read the original story. Nothing happened just before the snap so you are going to kill the play based on what you think may happen just after the snap? Do that all game long and it will be a really long game.

Guy's I don't disagree that had the action happened prior to the snap that there is a penalty. What I am merely trying to point out is that, according to the story, the snap was made. So you now have a live ball.

Now we have something. While the definition of a snap does not anywhere use the term "purposefully" it does say quick and continuous. Is a casual snap quick and continuous? Ruling that it is an illegal snap one now has the ability to kill the play for an illegal snap. Mike, thanks for pointing this out. In the play that started the discussion, if one is looking for an answer to put a stop to the ensuing action here is where it is found.

How about this
 

The play certainly fits under the "God" rule. I don't think anyone has disputed that. It certainly "tends to make a travesty of the game".The penalty is any the Referee "considers equitable". While the signal is S27, remember that is both unsportsmanlike and NONCONTACT. So why not 15 yards from the spot of the foul - the spot the q-back makes the utterance? As long as it's a noncontact vs unsportsmanlike, there is no mandate to enforce from the succeeding spot. Right? It isn't specifically covered so let's use common sense and fair play.