Article: HS Trick play

[Warrenkicker]

9-9-3 is the God rule. One example of it's usage is the "where's the tee" play. If you want to use it on this play then use it. Be ready to explain yourself. Hopefully your higher-ups will support your usage of it.

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by Warrenkicker

9-9-3 is the God rule.

Does it let you hit a 1-iron?

[William C]

That is a classic unsportsmanlike foul for a trick play.
The 'verbage' deal is the reason.
It may not spell it out in the case book word for word--but it's just like the 'wrong tee' play. We as officials have to apply similar situations to make the correct calls. This one is easy.
It's all in what the players/coaches say. You are deceiving the defense making them think you aren't going to run the play.
We had one a few years ago --when a player was called off the field by a coach and as he was 'trotting off' --the ball was snapped -and he took off down field to catch a pass. We flagged it for USC.....cause of the verbage.
Same thing as the 'wrong ball'. The defense cannot be put in that situation where they are under the impression you aren't going to run a play--and then you fly down the field w/ the ball.
There's basically no legit 'trick play' that is legal -- like the one on this thread --or ball hidden under a jersey - on fumblerooskie etc. The coaches need to focus on basics and not illegal plays.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: I understand Roamin's point that the snap (if you call it that) had already occurred. But here's the problem as I see it. Once there appears to be confusion and the play isn't developing because the QB is walking around holding up the 'wrong ball,' what do you do? What do you do if a LB comes in and takes his head off with a 'snot-knocker' of a tackle? You've allowed the QB to be unprotected. You'll get all kinds of grief that he had the wrong ball and was just making an 'honest' attempt to get things sorted out. Just because the case book makes that comment about the 'snap is not imminent' isn't (in my mind) enough to say that only that specific type of play should be ruled USC.

[waltjp]

This play doesn't pass the 'stink test'. This isn't a fake hand off, it's using verbiage to deceive. Flag it.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by waltjp

This play doesn't pass the 'stink test'. This isn't a fake hand off, it's using verbiage to deceive. Flag it.

Let's be careful here. "Using verbiage to deceive" is not illegal.

Using verbiage to deceive the defense into believing a snap is not imminent is illegal.

The USC described in the initial play is not illegal under THIS rule. It's illegal, basically, under the God rule, and via direct instruction from the NCAA and FED that they do not want the "wrong ball" or "Where's the tee" plays to be legal.

We cannot throw this one under the blanket of "using verbiage to deceive" is illegal. Players use verbiage all the time to deceive. Faking an audible to thwart an apparent blitz. Varying the snapcount. Even a receiver acting injured to draw his coverage elsewhere, or a QB telling a WR to go long when he doesn't go long, is not illegal.

[cougar729]

I've had a difficult time thinking about what I would do on this play, One part says that you kill it and flag USC on Team A, also you have to let it go (no foul kills the play), we had a legal snap... but if you do let it go and they score, then your looking at enforcing the USC on the try, in essence allowing A to score using an illegal tactic.