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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkA3nxuMJoM&e

What's really funny is the thread about it here where fanboys try to tell us how they know so much about football and how it's legal.

If this was FED, what's the ruling? Does the play stand but a 15 yard USC on the succeeding spot?

I'm a glutten for punishment, heck, that's why I officiate. So I was going to post a response but there is a 24 hour wait to post. Screw that.

Anyway, here's the play I was going to post to shed some light, or attempt to, for the ignorant fanboys:
<TABLE cellSpacing=4 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=nfhsMainFtMdBld vAlign=top noWrap>9.9.3 Situation B:</TD><TD class=nfhsMainFtMd vAlign=top align=left colSpan=4>From a field goal formation, potential kicker A1 yells, “Where’s the tee?” A2 replies, “I’ll go get it” and goes legally in motion toward his team’s sideline. Ball is snapped to A1 who throws a touchdown pass to A2.</TD></TR><TR><TD class=nfhsMainFtMd vAlign=top align=right>Ruling:</TD><TD class=nfhsMainFtMd align=left colSpan=4>Unsportsmanlike conduct prior to snap. The ball should be declared dead and the foul enforced as a dead-ball foul.</TD></TR><TR><TD class=nfhsMainFtMd vAlign=top noWrap align=right>Comment:</TD><TD class=nfhsMainFtMd align=left colSpan=4>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.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
That is cut and paste from the 2006 case book. Anytime equipment is used to decieve, it's treated according to the above case play. Play doesn't stand. Kill it, 15 yards previous spot. Would the USC go to the coach? So one more and it's happy trails to him, right?

NCAA: 2 rules apply, if needed. First is 9-2-2-b which says no tactic associated with the substitution process may be used to confuse opponents. I'm ruling changing balls as a tactic associated with the substitution process. If that isn't good enough, then 9-2-3-c can apply: obviously unfair act not specifically covered by the rules.

9-2-2 is a live ball foul and 9-2-3 is a referee discretion foul, but I'm shutting this play down immediately. Its a waste of time to run and I don't think the spirit of the rules intends us to give the defense a chance to foul and create an offset situation. I think the NCAA needs to change this to a dead ball foul.

Any objections to this?

9-2-2-c could also apply. No equipment may be used to confuse opponents. This isn't much different than the kicker running to towards the sideline asking for the kicking shoe such as is AR 9-2-2-V.

Jason is right for NCAA. No need to go to the catch all "obviously unfair acts", it is right there in using equipment to deceive. Definitely not using the sub process here (although most of us have seen the variation where that rule should be applied, i.e. coach yelling at QB that he is not in this play and to get over here. As QB heads to sideline ball is direct snapped to a RB)

I think the equipment confusion rule is aimed more at what players are wearing more than balls and tees. I don't guess its a big stretch to say this is equipment confusion but I'm not sure that was encompassed in the intent of the rule.

Canadian Ruling
 

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.

Interesting that the Fed ruling & comment are specific to the snap, and thus by exclusion seem to imply such deception is legal at a free kick.

Ex: K1, preparing to place kick from a tee, complains to K2 of "wrong ball", tosses it to K2, who inspects it for pressure & bounce, then drop kicks it.

Robert

I'm pretty certain this "need a new ball" trick has been in one of the past NCAA bulletins that confirmed this was using equipment to deceive. Here's the AR that also shows the "need a shoe" trick. "Need a tee" also falls under this category.

AR-9-2-2-V
While a team is legally set to attempt a field goal, the potential holder
for the kick goes toward his team area asking for a shoe. A shoe is
thrown on the field and the player, in motion toward his team area,
turns toward the goal line. The ball is snapped to the player in the
kicking position, who throws a pass to the player who had turned
upfield after asking for a shoe. RULING: Penalty—15 yards from
the previous spot.

This wouldn't work in NFHS. 6-1-2 "A free kick shall be made from any point between the inbounds lines and on K's free-kick line... Once designated, k must kick from that spot."

Passing the ball as above, moves the ball away from that spot and would be a free-kick infraction.

Would (fed) 9.9.3 really apply to this situation? 9.9.3 specifies actions or verbiage to cause the defense to believe that there's a problem, and a snap is NOT imminent.

In the play above, assuming that was a legal snap, how would this rule cover it?

For those of you who have it tattooed on your arm, no I'm not talking about Dale Jr., the "God" rule has changed. It isn't 9-9-3 anymore. They made hiding the ball under the jersey 9-9-3. Now it is 9-9-4.

9-9-4 Neither team shall commit any act which, in the opinion of the referee, tends to make a travesty of the game.

That works in this case, but it still seems Fed might've made reference to putting the ball in play rather than the snap specifically. However, the practice of pretending to, or approaching to, adjust the ball and then kicking it seems to be time honored, and that seems to be in the spirit of the game because you can't deny that kicking the ball is an obvious & overt act that nobody would do unless they were actually playing it. Maybe that's why Fed didn't want to cover free kicks in the same reference.

Actually moving the ball away from the spot wouldn't be an infraction until the ball was actually kicked from other than the designated spot.

Robert

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

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

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."

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?????

• 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.

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.

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.

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

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

The snap wwas illegal as well.

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.

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.

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.

I'll ask about that below.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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