"Wrong ball" play makes it to Pee-Wee ball

[Canfootball52]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

In the Great White North, we call it Misleading Tactics.

It's 5 yards and sadly, we have to let the play happen, then bring it back to negate the TD/gain.

Here is the ruling from our local Referee-In-Chief, and the VP of Training and Development for Football Canada.

"Although it appears as misleading tactics, the only thing wrong was that the ball was not snapped appropriately. Once the ball is snapped the play was on. there was no tactic prior to the ball being snapped to mislead the opponents. If ball snapped legally the play would be okay."

[jontheref]

The God rule works in the second one quite nicely. In the pee wee play it also applies but if you want to go one step further...I have an illegal snap since the snapper gets up...turns around and hands the ball to the quarterback. It is not one continuous motion. Will there be a highschool coach that dares tries anything like this this year?????

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Canfootball52

Here is the ruling from our local Referee-In-Chief, and the VP of Training and Development for Football Canada.

"Although it appears as misleading tactics, the only thing wrong was that the ball was not snapped appropriately. Once the ball is snapped the play was on. there was no tactic prior to the ball being snapped to mislead the opponents. If ball snapped legally the play would be okay."

• 1-11-2d
  • The use of tactics to deceive opponents such as the alleged need for equipment such as a tee, mouthguard, etc; or the pretense of calling players toward the bench as if a time out had been called, is illegal.
  • Penalty: 1.2D = L5, DR; 3D DG = L5, DR; 3D DNG = LB PBD.

A tactic was clearly used to deceive the opponents. Since DG because a TD was scored, we're going back 5 from the PLS, DR.

You are correct that I should be careful of the term "misleading tactic" because the book has a definition of Misleading Tactics in 4-2-2, of which none of that text applies here.

You are also correct that 4-2-1 was violated: the method in which the snap must take place. I believe that this is illegal procedure and should be blown dead immediately, much like an offensive lineman breaking a 3- or 4-point stance.

To say that a misleading tactic wasn't used, is rubbish. You can see the defense relaxing when the loud "wrong ball" comment was voiced. Team A clearly used a tactic to mislead the defense. Although it is not Misleading Tactics as defined in 4-2-2, it is a misleading tactic. (Note non-capitalization.)

Bottom line is this is not appropriate Canadian football and it will be penalized. If I had a vote, I would kill the play right away and not let A make a travesty of the game.

Team B players know that A must snap the ball between the centre's legs. When they see the "snap" that does not go between the centre's leg, imho, it is not their fault that they think a play is not imminent. When the play does start to develop, and the yelling of "wrong ball", A has clearly made a travesty of the game.

[OverAndBack]

there was no tactic prior to the ball being snapped to mislead the opponents

Other than, you know, the whole "Hey, this is the wrong ball" thing.

Was it the wrong ball? No? Then it was a falsehood, right? That's a ruse, a cunning attempt to trick.

[Mike L]

For us it's no different than a "where's the tee" play. Shut it down, USC against the head coach. Mark it off and move along.
With any luck, during the discussion before the game with the coach about "unusual plays" he might mention this travesty so you can tell him it ain't gonna happen.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by jontheref

The God rule works in the second one quite nicely. In the pee wee play it also applies but if you want to go one step further...I have an illegal snap since the snapper gets up...turns around and hands the ball to the quarterback. It is not one continuous motion.

I can't watch the video from here, but I'll just ask a few questions:

• Was the snapper facing approximately forward (judging by shoulders) at the time he began to move the ball?
• After putting his hand(s) on the ball, and optionally adjusted it, did he pause clearly before moving it?
• From the time he began moving the ball, did it continue to move backwards in a quick & continuous motion until it left his hand(s)?
• Was the snapper motionless (judged by appropriate standard for the level of play) before starting to move the ball?

If "yes" to all of the above, aren't the formation, the motion, and the snap itself legal under USAn rules? (Unless there's been a recent change, Canadian rules require the ball to be snapped between the legs heel-to-toe.)

Or was the video just of another "wrong ball" type play, which is illegal for other reasons?

Robert

[BktBallRef]

Robert, the verbiage prior to the snap makes the play illegal.

The snap wwas illegal as well.

[SoGARef]

No one seems to want to answer Robert's question.

The snap is an obvious snap infraction and the play should have been blown dead and flagged by the umpire. The rest of the play is moot!

But let's say the snap had been a legal snap, what would you then have?

The comment from the 2007 NFHS Casebook for Rule 9-3-3 says:
"COMMENT: Football has been and always will be a game of deception and trickery involving multiple shifts, unusual formations and creative plays. However, actions or verbiage designed to confuse the defense into believing there is problem and a snap isn't imminent is beyond the scope of sportsmanship and is illegal."

I have watched and listened (at full volume) to this play over and over. At no point before the "snap" is there any verbiage about a wrong ball. So, there is no verbiage designed to confuse the defense into believing there is a problem and a snap isn't imminent. The ball is snapped to the QB (again, we are assuming this is a legal snap) who then turns with a live ball to the coach and declares this is the wrong ball. Does not the defense have some responsibility to be aware of a live ball situation? Remember, there was nothing deceiving done before the snap and at the snap the only thing to happen was the offense did not move.

I'm having a hard time seeing this as deceiving and rather a defense that is asleep at the wheel. Yes, I can see where a referee could invoke Rule 9-3-4 and say, "I don't like it and in my opinion it is an unfair act." If we do, what are we going to enforce? Remember 9-3-4 does not have a specific penalty enforcement. If you call it unsportsmanlike but didn't kill the ball, the results of the play stand and you apply the penalty on the succeeding spot. If you call it a live ball foul you can negate the results of the play and come back to the previous or basic spot, but what do you call it and what is the yardage?

Probably what I will do is this. In my pre-game conference with the HC I ask if there are any unusual plays that I need to be aware that he might use tonight. This is certainly an unusual play. If he tells me about it I will probably suggest to him that he should not run that play tonight. I would also suggest that he get an interpretation from the State Association on the play. If he chooses not to tell me about the play and then runs it, I will probably flag him for unsportsmanlike conduct by invoking 9-3-4.

Sorry about the long post, but I felt a need for a devil's advocate.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by SoGARef

Sorry about the long post, but I felt a need for a devil's advocate.

My full volume listening tells me something quite different. And I'll continue the "playing devil's advocate" game, let it go but about the time the QB steps past his end the safety comes across with a full head of steam and plasters him. What are you going to do when the coach now starts whining about he was just changing the ball and you are ignoring a personal foul?
Let's just face it, this is not a football play in any whay invisioned by fair play and should be stopped immediately and penalized accordingly.

[3bag9er]

Originally Posted by STEVED21

Here's one that's worse. They made it on to national TV.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hpOnoD_LEQ

Hey I know this guy he is now our Middle School Head Football coach in Augusta KS...

He never hears the end of this, when my crew officiates his games we always ask him if they have the wrong ball play in store...

[Warrenkicker]

Originally Posted by 3bag9er

Hey I know this guy he is now our Middle School Head Football coach in Augusta KS...

He never hears the end of this, when my crew officiates his games we always ask him if they have the wrong ball play in store...

I had no idea he was still around here. We had our one 8-man game last year and it was Flinthills at Udall. During the pregame the Flinthills coach actually said to us that he wouldn't try the "wrong ball" trick and that he couldn't believe it had been 10 years since that play happened.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by SoGARef

The snap is an obvious snap infraction

I'll ask about that below.

The ball is snapped to the QB (again, we are assuming this is a legal snap) who then turns with a live ball to the coach and declares this is the wrong ball. Does not the defense have some responsibility to be aware of a live ball situation? Remember, there was nothing deceiving done before the snap and at the snap the only thing to happen was the offense did not move.

I'm having a hard time seeing this as deceiving and rather a defense that is asleep at the wheel. Yes, I can see where a referee could invoke Rule 9-3-4 and say, "I don't like it and in my opinion it is an unfair act."

I would hope that this would be viewed as akin to feigning injury or simulating an official's whistle. The defense is not asleep in the sense that would leave them vulnerable to a quick play; they're paying att'n to the right thing, but what they're paying att'n to is unfair and even dangerous.

I still haven't seen the video, but the written descriptions here don't necessarily preclude a legal snap. I could imagine various body movements by the snapper during a time the ball is being moved quickly & continuously backward. For example, the snapper is motionless with both hands on the ball, and then begins a turn on one foot at the beginning of which the ball is taken from the ground, ending with the snapper facing his end line and the ball's being taken from his hands by a player entitled to do so. The ball is moving backwards in one motion throughout, describing a circular arc that starts on the ground and ends at waist height. (Yeah, I know, illegal in Canadian football.)

What exactly made the snap in the video (I haven't seen) illegal?

Meanwhile, here's a snap I've wondered about the legality of for some time. Suppose the snapper begins the conventional between-the-legs snap, but at the end of it, wraps the ball around the inside of one leg so that it leaves his hand(s) still moving backwards but at a sharp angle. The ball is continously moving backwards, but the motion itself could be said to be discontinuous in that it's not a straight line or smooth arc, but consists of a straight-back segment and an angled-back segment. The motion is continuous in time but "broken" or "interrupted" in geometry. Legal?

Robert

[hawk65]

1. NFHS inserted new rule 9-9-3 in the 2007 Rule Book (“No player shall hide the ball under a jersey.”) but didn’t change the numbers for 9.9.3 SITUATION A and 9.9.3 SITUATION B in the 2007 Case Book. The result is that these two cases are mis-numbered – these cases previously related to 9-9-3 but that rule is now 9-9-4.
2. Rule 9-9-4 states, “Neither team shall commit any act which, in the opinion of the referee, tends to make a travesty of the game.” The rule does not define “travesty,” nor does it define “deception,” “trickery,” “scope of sportsmanship” or any other descriptive terms mentioned in this case. This rule is subject to a very broad or very narrow interpretation “..in the opinion of the referee” as to what is an “Unfair Act.”
3. The Case Book states a conclusion that the play described in 9.9.3 SITUATION B is “Unsportsmanlike conduct prior to snap” because “.. actions or verbiage designed to confuse the defense into believing there is problem and a snap isn't imminent is beyond the scope of sportsmanship and is illegal.” This conclusion is not supported by any other rule(s); it may or may not be “the opinion of the referee” (the applicable rule which this case is supposed to support); and it makes no objective case why this is “unfair.” In NFHS football it is “fair” to:
   • allow a ±250-pound lineman to run full speed and block a ±125-pound defensive back (and the smaller defensive back can no longer equalize the mismatch and initiate contact below the knees);
   • allow a 250# runner to run over a 150# tackler;
   • allow a fast and shifty player to put a “good move” in the open field on an opponent causing that opponent to look clumsy or incompetent and be embarrassed in front of opponents and fans (and teammates);
   • allow mismatched teams to compete with no restriction on scoring (NFHS rules don’t provide for any “mercy rule” – if one exists it is because it has been adopted by the local association). Even within local rules, scores can be lopsided and embarrassing.
4. The NFHS Rule Book and the Case Book do not define “sportsmanship” or the “scope of sportsmanship.” In our culture, sportsmanship ranges from “report your own score” of the PGA to mayhem in the WWE. What standard of sportsmanship should govern “the opinion of the referee”?
5. The end result of this vague rule and a case that isn’t supported by rules is controversy – two crews can look at the same play and judge it legal or illegal. And both can cite a rule – “the opinion of the referee,” “deception,” “trickery” or “scope of sportsmanship” to support their decision.

[OverAndBack]

The ball is snapped to the QB (again, we are assuming this is a legal snap) who then turns with a live ball to the coach and declares this is the wrong ball. Does not the defense have some responsibility to be aware of a live ball situation?

Remember, these are children we're dealing with here. Young children. These aren't seasoned pros. Many of these kids may not have known a football from foie gras a month prior to this game.

Bottom line (IMHO) is this: the referee of each game is the final arbiter. Each game has a different referee with different experience levels and different ideas about the spirit of the game of football. I'm going with my interpretation - you go with yours. Let the governing bodies sort it out later. But I could sleep well that night calling this one back.

[Robert Goodman]

Now that I have looked at the Letterman video, the snap looks perfectly legal. It's just that the course of the play looks like the sort of thing that would tend to diminish the kids' trust in adults' control of the game, which is of course a bad thing and IMO should be illegal even if it's not clearly so under current rules. If they're playing by Fed rules, it at least looks arguably (and going by the narrator's description on the show, must be) illegal in that there seems to be communication with the bench that would lead the other team to believe the snap not to be imminent, team A not ready to play. But I don't like it even if the communication had occurred only after the ball was put in play.

But really, nothing wrong with the snap under USAn rules. I know of at least one play series from a set called the Power Wing where the ball is to be snapped like that to a fly man in motion.

History note: When Canadian football universally adopted the hand snap in (IIRC) 1923, they required it to be thrown, and not handed, between the legs, apparently because that's what they saw being done in the USA, even though American rules were not that restrictive. (I don't know whether the Burnside rules used by some Canadian teams earlier in the 20th Century were less restrictive about the snap; I suspect so, considering the variety of play in the USA at the time Burnside formulated them. American rules didn't even outlaw the kick forward to scrimmage the ball instead of snapping it until well after the Burnside rules were promulgated.) It was about a decade and a half before Canadian football legalized the hand-to-hand snap, but they never legalized snapping otherwise than between the legs.

Robert