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

[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.

[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