Do We Have Anything Here?
 

Here Is A Play Of Discussion In Last Nights Meeting.

1-10 B 25 B Out Of Time Outs
B Reaks The Huddle Goes To The Los
In The Cadence Running Back Turns Toward White Hat And Gestures,and Verbalizes Time Out Time Out.
This Causes The Defense To Relax(stand Up)
Offense Then Snaps The Ball And Throws For A Score.
Would You Call Unsportsmanlike?

Yet another play I'll put into my own list of plays that are called unfair acts! If the NF could list all this kind of stuff, they would add another page or two to their books.

Yes, I would flag this as a UC and I'd kill the play at that time.
It fits the commentary you'll find for CB 9.9.3 Sit B. I'll repeat it here.
... actions or verbiage designed to confuse the defense into believing there is a problem and a snap isn't imminent is beyond the scope of sportsmanship and is illegal.

Textbook example of the unfair acts penalty. Kill it, walk it, move on.

I'm confused. You say B is out of timeouts and the running back (A?) is calling a time out. Why not just grant the time out?

Now then, if your post meant B is on offense and B is out of time outs, could you not just hit B with delay of game for attempting to call a time out they don't have and move along? Are you sure the running back knew he had no time outs? Did he have some equipment problem? Maybe I'd have to see everything going on to make any judgement because you've got some things to consider here rather than just automatically going to the USC. In either event, there's no way a TD is getting scored.

The rule book says you deny a request for any time out after they have used all three. I don't think you can just flag them for delay as they request it.

I'm sure the original poster was not referring to the defense (which we commonly call Team-B) as the team who was out of TOs. He said the RB (running back) was the one attempting to call the TO. He probably didn't even realize how he worded the conditions, "B" is the offense in his play.

Read whatever you want into the reason the RB was trying to call a TO, but when no TO's are left, officials have to ignore the request. Sure hit them up for a delay if the 25 second clock expires, but ignore the request.

It was clear to me this was a planned deception to get the defense to relax which was also stated in the play.

Canadian Philosophy
 

For the most part, we do not penalize for requesting a timeout when none can be granted.

Only if the official believes this tactic is being used as a midleading tactic, penalize as 10 yards Objectionable Conduct. In eleven seasons I have never seen it used thisway.

Where is bigjohn when we need him. Unfair acts if the TO call affects the defense, 15 yards and clock on the RFP if they are behind.

What if this was genuinely unintentional?

How was it clear to you? I have nothing on this play absent evidence that it was designed to confuse the defense. The original poster offered none in this case.

You'd have to be there to judge intent. An easy out? Illegal shift on the RB because he wasn't set for a second before the snap because he was busy calling timeout! :)

Nice.

Bossman and Parepat - MJT has the right idea on this one. Think within the framework of the intent of the rule - if it affects the defense (let alone the ENTIRE defense) kill it as an unfair act. It's an easy sell, in my opinion.

This sounds like a flawed play from the start - A does not seem to be set for a second and B has relaxed. The way I see it in my mind, it's an illegal shift - maybe a false start. I'd really like to shut this play down but I think I'd just have to flag it and let it go.

The only way I'd call USC is if A was signalling for a time out and then all of a sudden, as a team , they stopped, got set and went as if on cue. I just don't think a coach would be "smart" enough for a trick play like this for situation where he had no time outs.

HeHe

I'm sure you might get some objection from coaches about that. :D

Personally, I never underestimate a coach's ability to teach his kids the most complicated trick plays while not mastering the ability to teach his kids to block and tackle.

I think the fake/wrong timeout accompanied by an immediate snap after the defense relaxes gives us enough of an idea of the intentions of the offense.

And the notion of hitting them with a DOG, while a great rules idea that I'd love to see implemented, is borrowing a non-existent rule from our basketball brethren. Calling timeout in football when you don't have one is not a techical foul, err... I mean Delay of Game.

Then I expect I might have a flag for either illegal shift or illegal motion, since the RB is not motionless at the snap.

I think you'll be able to read this from the reaction of the player attempting to call the timeout. If the snap goes off and he's really caught flatfooted, then I might judge this to be unintentional. If he starts moving immediately, I'm shutting it down and flagging it.

We seem to be reading a lot into the intent of the players on plays like this. How do you know the RB did not know they had no timeouts? How do you know the RB did not think the formation was wrong or something else was wrong? As for motion, if the RB is not simulating a start and no other player is moving how is this false start or illegal shift? This very well could be a simple mistake that worked out in Team B's favor.

I see. Although i don't think you can have an illegal motion/shift since the motion seemed legal.

Canadian Ruling
 

Actually, in Canada I believe this would fall under misleading tactics (1-11-2c) and not OC. If you call OC then you would have to allow the result of the play such as a TD to stand since OC is L10 but no cancelling of the play. So it would be L5DR on 1st or 2nd down.

If 14 seasons never had anyone do this.

My bad. In 11 seasons, I do not ever recall seeing a misleading tactic, so I guess I forgot how to admin one.

PS: don't forget the lightbulb! I use it as a visible aid to remind people that it's Cdn rules I talk about.