Trick play ruled legal

[whistleone]

I'm not sure if this has been posted here yet (I'm not a football guy).

http://www.idahostatesman.com/104/story/59338.html

IHSAA executive director denies Sandpoint's appeal after Bishop Kelly's 28-24 victory on Friday
Related Links

By Jesse Zentz
Idaho Statesman | Edition Date: 11/08/06
Email This Article Printer Friendly Page
The Idaho High School Activities Association has denied an appeal from Sandpoint High, whose football coaches argued that Bishop Kelly used an illegal trick play in Saturday's 4A quarterfinal victory, IHSAA executive director John Billetz said Tuesday.

Click here to see the play If the video link does not work in the post, it's also available in the article link.

The play in question, in which quarterback Kyle Cefalo handed off to left guard Javier Galindo, resulted in a 40-yard touchdown run that sparked Bishop Kelly to a 28-24, come-from-behind win in Sandpoint.

After the trick play with less than 5 minutes left in the game, Bishop Kelly converted an onside kick and scored a second touchdown with 36 seconds on the clock.

"Our stance is that the (trick) play was a legal play and we'll stand by that decision," Billetz said. "... I've contacted the rules interpreter in District One. I've contacted Paul Ostyn, the state rules interpreter. I've contacted the chairman of the National Federation of State High Schools Associations Football Rules Committee and I've contacted the vice chair of the NFHS rules committee. All four said the play was ruled correctly."

During the play in question, Cefalo received the snap and handed the ball to Galindo, who spun around from his left guard position and faced his own goal line. Cefalo and other BK players faked a sweep to the right, while Galindo waited a couple seconds with a Sandpoint player holding him from behind.

The Sandpoint player then let go of Galindo, unaware that he had the ball, and the Bishop Kelly senior raced down the left sideline and scored to trim Sandpoint's lead to 24-21.

"It was a trick play. It worked and that's the way it goes," Bishop Kelly coach Tim Brennan said. "Other plays in that game were just as key. That single play didn't win the game. If it was illegal, or if I had any idea that it was an illegal play, I wouldn't have run it. I don't coach that way."

In an e-mail to the Idaho Statesman, Casey McLaughlin, the assistant head coach at Sandpoint, said BK violated a rule in the rulebook used by the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS).

The rule states that a player can hand the ball "to a back or a teammate who, at the snap, was on an end of his line and was not the snapper nor adjacent to the snapper."

Said McLaughlin: "... There is no debate that (Galindo) is ‘adjacent to the snapper.' ''

Billetz used the NFHS 2006 Football Case Book to determine that a play involving a "planned loose ball'' is legal if "(the quarterback) takes the snap and hands the ball to (a guard), who has legally turned to face his own goal line.''

Brennan said the Knights ran the same play against Emmett during the regular season, but it didn't work.

Mountain View coach Nate Borchert said his team ran the same play twice against Centennial and once against Caldwell. When the Mavericks used the play against Caldwell, Borchert said his team scored a touchdown.

"They outlawed the old fumblerooskie, but we made sure with the officials before the season started that we could run the play," Borchert said. "It's legal because it's an actual handoff. The referee needs to see what's going on, so the guard turns around and exposes himself to the referee."

Sandpoint athletic director Cheryl Klein told The Spokesman-Review newspaper in Spokane that the school would accept the interpretation by Billetz and move on.

Bishop Kelly, the two-time defending 4A state champion, hosts Mountain Home at 7 p.m. Friday in the state semifinals at Nick Ysursa Field.

[Sonofanump]

It does not appear to me that the player stepped back at all, he just turned around. If he is not one yard behind the LOS, I've got a foul.

[grantsrc]

What in the world are the fans doing that close to the field?

Playing devil's advocate here, could you say that the ball carrier's forward progress had been stopped when the defensive player wrapped up the guard?

[sj]

As an aside what difference does it make if the play is legal or not? The appeal should be rejected with the only comment being that it does not matter if the play is legal or not the game cannot be replayed.

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by Sonofanump

It does not appear to me that the player stepped back at all, he just turned around. If he is not one yard behind the LOS, I've got a foul.

It looks to me like he met the one yard requirement. Legal play in my book.

[parepat]

Originally Posted by sj

As an aside what difference does it make if the play is legal or not? The appeal should be rejected with the only comment being that it does not matter if the play is legal or not the game cannot be replayed.

Exactly! This would be no different than if the officials missed a hold on the touchdown. Looked good to me.

[Blue37]

Originally Posted by grantsrc

Playing devil's advocate here, could you say that the ball carrier's forward progress had been stopped when the defensive player wrapped up the guard?

I think so, given 4-2-2a

Rule 4 Ball in Play, Dead Ball and Out of Bounds
SECTION 2 DEAD BALL AND END OF THE DOWN
ART. 2 The ball becomes dead and the down is ended:
a. When a runner is held so his forward progress is stopped. (edited to remove nonessential words)

It appears #97 had a pretty good idea the guard had the ball. They might have practiced for the play, telling him to tackle the guard if he turned his back. He initially did his job, then fell for the fake going away from him. Since the guard was not trying to pull away from him, it is hard to say how securely he was holding him, but I would not argue with an official who ruled his progress was stopped.

Would I have called it? Maybe. It depends on what else was happening. There might have been things said or observed that the film does not show.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by grantsrc

What in the world are the fans doing that close to the field?

Playing devil's advocate here, could you say that the ball carrier's forward progress had been stopped when the defensive player wrapped up the guard?

Not if I'm working that game. I think that's a reach. Let'em play.

Either way, that wouldn't make the play illegal.

[HLin NC]

or called the cops

The referee needs to see what's going on, so the guard turns around and exposes himself to the referee."

[MD Longhorn]

Looks legal to me.

Next game you work, set up like a guard, and then turn around. Then look at where the ball is when you get it. Unless you pirouette like a ballerina, you're probably 1 yard back from the line. Looks like this guy is too.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Legal. LOS is that marked line you can see on the video. He's a yard back, and as mbcrowder stated, it would be difficult not to be, especially given the benefit of the doubt.

[Sonofanump]

It appears to me that he did not step back and took the handoff at his original position. I understand we are talking 1 yard from the LOS, but I still have a problem where he took the ball.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Sonofanump

It appears to me that he did not step back and took the handoff at his original position. I understand we are talking 1 yard from the LOS, but I still have a problem where he took the ball.

I was unaware of a rule saying he could not be in his original position. I'm only aware of the rule saying he hast to take it 1 yard (36 inches!) behind the LOS. And it appears he is.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Sonofanump

It appears to me that he did not step back and took the handoff at his original position. I understand we are talking 1 yard from the LOS, but I still have a problem where he took the ball.

3-2-a: "A lineman who has clearly faced his goal line by moving both feet in a half-turn and is at least 1 yard behind his line when he receives the ball."

If these requirements are met (and it sure looks like they are in the clip), the play is legal.

[cmathews]

Originally Posted by Sonofanump

It appears to me that he did not step back and took the handoff at his original position. I understand we are talking 1 yard from the LOS, but I still have a problem where he took the ball.

it is pretty tough for a high school kid to have his feet within a yard of his hands if he is in a 3 point stance....and since he has to be behind the ball to be legal, it is even tougher for his feet to be within a yard of the line of scrimmage...so when he stands and turns, well there ya go....nice play