Article: HS Trick play
 

Schooled, Fooled and Fueled
Douglass Rallies Despite Late Arrival After SAT, Forestville Trickery

By Ryan Mink
Special to The Washington Post
Sunday, October 15, 2006; E11

Douglass wasn't in game mood when the team bus arrived at Forestville High 10 minutes before kickoff yesterday. The SATs took longer than expected, and the Eagles were trying to refocus on football.

But once backup quarterback David Samuel returned the opening kickoff for a touchdown, the Eagles were ready. When Forestville responded on its first snap from scrimmage with a trick play, the Eagles were angry.

Less than a minute into the game, No. 20 Douglass had all the fire it needed for a 36-18 win.

"It was like, 'Wow, we're in a ballgame,' " Douglass Coach J.C. Pinkney said. "I hadn't quite seen anything like that."

After the 86-yard kickoff return for a touchdown, Forestville's sideline was stunned. But following a touchback, the Knights came to the line and quarterback Kevin Dickerson took a casual snap that went around the center's leg, not in between. As none of his blockers moved, Dickerson stood up seemingly confused and started walking nonchalantly to the sidelines while holding up the ball, yelling he had a kicking ball, not a regular game ball. Douglass's defense took the bait.

As soon as Forestville Coach Charles Harley subtly pointed up the field, Dickerson took off.

"Once I got to the opening I realized there was no one around me," Dickerson said. "In my mind I was like, 'You've got to be joking. I can't believe this is actually working' because right before the play started I said, 'I'm really not feeling this play.' "

Pinkney protested, but Harley had run it by the referees before the game to make sure it was legal.

"I had a feeling he had something up his sleeve, but not in my wildest would I think of something like that," Pinkney said.

The play didn't come from Harley but instead from one of his former players, current Penn State tackle Antonio Logan-El. Logan-El called Harley in the early hours Friday night with news that Penn State was going to use the trick play against Michigan last night and that Forestville should be the guinea pig. So as Douglass's players were still taking the SATs, Forestville (3-3) practiced the play before the game.

It couldn't have worked any better, except for one thing: The trickery made the Eagles (5-1) want to win that much more.

"How are you going to score on a trick play?" Douglass running back Jerrell Wedge said. "It angered me so much I wanted to hurt someone out there."

Wedge went on to rush for 236 yards, including 202 in the first half, and three touchdowns to lead a dominant rushing attack.

No. 20 Douglass 36, Forestville 18 Turnover Prone: The Eagles had to overcome two fumbles and an interception in the first half. They turned to the sure-handed Jerrell Wedge on a key final drive of the half to gain a 23-12 halftime lead on his four-yard touchdown plunge. Long Gains: Forestville thrived on the big play, scoring on the 80-yard trick play, a 74-yard touchdown pass from Kevin Dickerson to Devonte Campbell and a 45-yard pass from Dickerson to Christopher Wormley.

Here's the worst part of the story:

"Pinkney protested, but Harley had run it by the referees before the game to make sure it was legal."

Is there anyone on this board that is confused by this? This play is illegal. It is not a "trick play," it is unsportsmanlike behavior. Deception makes the defense think the snap is not imminent and is a USC on the Head Coach. And, yes, you shut the play down at the snap.

This crew needs to get back into the rule book?

See, I'm not totally convinced this is illegal. (Nor am I convince that it is legal.) The usual "wrong ball" or "where's the tee" play involves deception before the snap to make players think the snap is not imminent. On this play, we have actually had a legal snap. In the <a href="http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=28491">last discussion we had on this topic</a>, it was (at least mostly) consensus that after the snap, deceptive calls by the offense were OK.

Personally, I think this sort of crap shouldn't be allowed. But, by rule, is it?

I'm thinking the "This is the wrong ball" when it's not the wrong ball gives us the out we need, whether or not it's after the snap.

If they run it by my crew in pregame, I'm going to chime in that we're not going to let them do it (of course, the final call is the white hat's, isn't it?).

God, I've had enough problems tonight, I don't need to see something like this with only two games left to work this season.

What would be the rule refererence for making this illegal?

commisioner of that group stated

Forestville vs. Douglas in the paper the six official were wrong. Rule
9.9.3 page 78 case book At no time may a team use verbige to deceive.

9.9.3 page 78 case book At no time may a team use verbige to deceive.

Yeah, but that is not what it says. It finishes with the comment "a snap isn't imminent..." What we have in this play is a legal snap 2.39 and a live ball 2.1.2 and a defense who is asleep.

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.

Does it let you hit a 1-iron?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I can only imagine enforcing from the previous spot on this. Perhaps there is one, but I cannot think of another non-contact foul that would be enforced from the spot of the foul. Enforcing it as such would seem very incongruous.

Maybe that illegal snap thing is one way to get it to a previous spot if you don't think you want to kill it just for USC. After you see what is happening kill it and go over to the head coach and tell him you have an illegal snap and if he doesn't like it then you have USC on top of an illegal snap. And the next time you see it there won't be any decision for that coach to make about what type of foul he wants you to call.

See, I don't feel honor bound to be restricted by the letter of the law. I'd kill it, enforce 15, and sleep very well at night.

I'm just telling you what I'd do. I don't feel the need to justify penalizing such blatant USC to anyone.