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

[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.

[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

[Jim D]

For all you who are concerned if the communication occoured before or after the snap, here is a play from Reddings that shows it's the play that's unfair - who says what to who when is not as important as the attempt to disarm the defense.

A22 pretends that he has injured an ankle, but refuses assistance when asked by the officials. During the following play he limps and does not directly participate. On the next play, A22 goes in motion with a very severe limp. At the snap, A22 runs without problems and catches a pass. Ruling: The unfair act provision should be utilized to enforce an minimum of a 15-yard penalty.

[Umpmazza]

I couldnt find it in the rule book, but i did find it in the casebook... anybody have the exact rule?

[BktBallRef]

The case play corresponds with the rule. (Same number)