HS Trick Play, Part 2
 

I've been reading the Trick Play thread and want to make sure I am understanding the point there...what makes the play illegal is what the QB says as he is walking toward the sidelines, correct?

We run a direct snap play where the QB stops before going under center (stands next to the fullback), looks at the defense, tries to look confused, starts shaking his head and walking toward the sideline (without saying a word), and then the ball is snapped to the fullback and away we go...this is legal because there is no "deceptive verbiage", right?

REPLY: From the 2006 Federation Case Book play 9.9.3 Situation B: "However, actions or verbiage designed to confuse the defense into thinking there is a problem..." It's just as illegal as the other play.

Maybe it's just me but isn't it more fun to play against a defense?

So if we just have him turn and go - as in motion - without shaking his head or anything, then it would be legal?

Except the ball was legally or illegally snapped:D

Not following you here...why would a direct snap to the fullback be illegal?

A snap is the legal act of passing or handing the ball backward from it's position on the ground. This must a quick, continuous motion and the ball must immediately leave the snapper's hand and touches a back or the ground before an A lineman may touch it.

You can legally snap to any back - QB, HB, TB or FB.

I don't think :enjoy" is the right word. But this trick play has been quite interesting. The thing that makes the play with the QB looking for the "right ball" is the verbiage that comes with it. The snap I dont believe is the problem since there is nothing in the rulebook which says the snap has to be between anyone legs...rather in just one motion. I have a problem with the USC angle as far as penalty is concerned. If we go 15 for USC and let the play go off....then you have to award the touchdown by definition. If you penalize under "an unfair act" thats a different story...you can do anything you want.

Finally it seems to me that there is a line in either the Points of Emphasis or the casebook which talks about "deception being a part of the game" That is a man in motion or a reverse or a direct snap. But since the offense seeks to gain something not allowed it by rule, it is a deception not legal under the current federation book.

Anyway, thats my take.

In the original thread the story speaks to the fact that the snap was a casual movement. If I might summarize what everyone is upset about is the action after the snap is too close to 9.9.3 B. The case book play with the 9.9.3 B rule speaks to a play where the snap has not been made.
In the Trick Play thread the snap had been made prior to any "funny" action taking place. If one follows the definition of snap which states the snap must be quick and continuous then the question becomes "is casual a quick and continuous movement?" If the answer is yes then there is a live ball if the answer is no then there is a dead ball snap infraction and any ensuing action is happening during a dead ball and really doesn't mean anything except maybe a warning to the team to not do that any more.

Gotcha...I misread and thought you were saying that the snap in my play was illegal...us coaches are easily confused!

9-9-3-b
 

No - it's both/either the action and/or verbiage. 9-9-3-B. Either one is illegal if it is confusing the defense into believeing a snap is not imminent.

I don't understand why you do this? Why don't you just play the game straight up and outplay your opponent with better execution of your plays (blocking and tackling) instead of trying to deceive them?

I lose a lot of respect for coaches who try to deceive and I gain respect for those coaches who teach the game well to their players and they block and tackle better than their opponents.

Like I said in the other thread. Whistle, flag, 15, don't lose sleep over penalizing.

Hmmm...since when has a direct snap play been illegal?? If sending our QB in motion is illegal we will stop doing it - that's the reason I asked the question in the first place...

And as for playing the game "straight up", that's a pretty ballsy comment from someone who has never seen me coach or seen my team play...we have never run this particular play in a game, and have practiced it maybe 5 times all season. But since it's on our play sheet, I wanted to make sure it was legal - seems it isn't so it will come off the play sheet.

I coach at a small private HS - we had 20 kids to start the season, have lost two to injuries and have played the last 4 games (with two more to go) with 18 players (playing 11-man football)...my kids are some of the gutsiest, hardest-hitting kids I've ever been around...they play hard and they play well.

And as for wheteh or not you respect me as a coach, all I can do is shrug...

It's not. The play you describe is though.

Yeah ...ok. you play the game straight up ... except for the play that this whole post is about. Whatever. think what you like about yourself, but it's not accurate.

Did you actually read my last post? We've never run it, and now that I know it's illegal we never will...so YOU think whatever you want about me, because I know who is accurate and who isn't...

And thanks to Bob M, Bob Mc, Rick KY, and others who answered the question for me...

So what did you mean by the statement that began (in the OP) "We run a direct snap play...."? Did you lie then, or did you lie now?

Wow... I said we have run it in practice...never run it in a game. Running it in practice is running it, no? But as I said, now that I know it's not legal, we won't run it (in practice or in a game, try to keep up here) anymore. Didn't lie then, not lying now...

Here's the post that made you mad:
Then you try to tell us you do play the game straight up. yet you quite clearly are admitting that if this play was legal, you'd run it. Not quite straight up, wouldn't you think? I think you've made forks (and my) point for us. If you could get away with it, you would run garbage like this, which teaches your kids NOTHING, as opposed to actually teaching them to play football.

Again, I say, think what you will of yourself. We now know better though.

wow, Crowder, maybe lighten up a little bit....if it is legal there is no reason not to run it. Trap plays are deceptive and much more dangerous than a play like this, yet they are legal and taught everywhere......I agree that this play is illegal and has no part in the game, but to call a coach out like that is a little over the top....again if it were legal why shouldn't he run it....tight ends feign a block all the time then leave the LOS to catch a pass, a little deceptive but again a good football play...good coaches know the rules and where the pitfalls and possible loopholes in those rules are, I applaud Rocky for being out here, finding out it is not a legal play and removing it from the play book...

Coaches' jobs are to win football games. Our jobs are to enforce the rules. There in lies the conflict. Rocky has a right if not a duty to do anything he can to win. There have been approximately 50 posts debating the legality of this play. And you question the coach for running the play? We can't even agree with uninimity the legality of it. He's right. I think your criticism is misplaced

If it was legal, why would it be garbage? If it's legal, what would be the problem with running it? You make no sense...

To put it all in summary form: I asked if it was legal to do something we have run in practice a few times. The answer quite clearly was no...then you decide to take personal shots at me and my team without knowing anything about us...and you want to question my character. Wow...I freely admit I learned something here and won't ever run that play again, and you call me a liar...again, Wow...I guess that from now on when I visit the football side of the forum, I will know whose posts to ignore. Thanks for your input mcrowder.
Have a nice day.

4 against one, huh. OK, no problem.

I'm not going to stoop to name calling (no, I did NOT call you a liar), and will try to restate what I said (BTW - I was not the first to say this).

You took high offense to being asked why (not by me, by the way) you didn't teach your kids how to win at football, instead of trying to figure out how to make the defense think a play was not going. Even if this specific play WAS legal, for you guys to equate the sportsmanship of running a play like this to a trap play or a TE blocking and then going out for a pass is quite simply ludicrous.

You started this thread by saying, "We run a play...". I apologize profusely if I inadvertently took that to mean that you run such a play. You didn't say we've been practicing a play, or we're thinking about a play... You said that you run such a play. I don't think it's that far out of bounds for me to think that by saying "We run a play," that you indeed run such a play. If this misunderstanding, caused by you, is your main sticking point in what I've said, there's nothing I can do about it. But it was YOUR words that caused the misunderstanding.

You ask, "If this play was legal, why would it be garbage?" It would be garbage because it's not football. It's trying to win by more than just simple trickery. Trying to trick the defense into misreading a play is one thing. Trying to trick them into thinking there IS no play is completely different, and surely fits under the heading of "garbage." And despite your protestations, I think you probably know that or you probably wouldn't have asked about this play in the first place. It was shady enough in your own mind to cause you to wonder. That says something, doesn't it?

(a side note to parepat --- I believe there is only one official on either of the boards trying to say this play is legal, and he has no leg to stand on. It's not that we can't agree... it's that one singular official won't listen to reason or read memorandi from the NCAA or FED)

Perhaps I was a little overboard on my reactions to this. For that I do apologize. But I stand firm that the sort of thinking that leads to the creation of this sort of play is FAR from "straight up" football. If someone has to resort to this sort of garbage to win, he's not a very good coach in my book, and not a "straight up" guy.

If the play was legal, it WOULD be "football"...since it isn't legal, then it's not "football". I can live with that...maybe you need to widen your vocabulary and understand that - for coaches - "running" a play doesn't mean ONLY in games - I understand that it might mean that for you since the only time you are around football is at games, but that isn't true for everyone.

And as I said, I learned some things from this post: 1)We will never run that play because I don't knowingly teach my kids illegal things...2)as I said before, I know who to ignore from this point on...

I don't understand why the number of kids on a team comes into a discussion of legality and ethics. Hopefully, lack of numbers is not an excuse for trying to deceive your opponent. Whether a play is legal or not is not the same as if it is ethical or not to deceive your opponent. Deceptions occur in real life even though they are legal. Sounds like with the hard-hitting gutsy kids that you have that you won't need to rely on deceiving your opponent. Playing hard and playing well is all you can ask of them.

Continued good luck in your coaching.