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

[OverAndBack]

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.

[SC Ump]

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

[grantsrc]

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:

9.9.3 Situation B:	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.
Ruling:	Unsportsmanlike conduct prior to snap. The ball should be declared dead and the foul enforced as a dead-ball foul.
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.

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?

[Texas Aggie]

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?

[JasonTX]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

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.

[TXMike]

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)

[Texas Aggie]

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.

[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.

[Robert Goodman]

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

[JasonTX]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

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.

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.

[Jim D]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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

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.

[ChickenOfNC]

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?

[Warrenkicker]

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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Jim D

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.

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

[STEVED21]

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

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