Two Scenarios from Last Night
 

In our game last night, we had two situations of which I cannot find any rule support. While discussing it in the post-game, the rest of the crew was certain they had it right, but I'm still not so sure.

1. Late in the second quarter, A is out of timeouts. They are taking quite some time and as they approach the line, the BJ raises his hand to indicate 5 seconds left on the play clock. The QB calls timeout. Our WH stops the clock and signals A's timeout. The rest of us are saying "no timeouts for A." Once the WH looks at his card, he realizes it, then throws a flag and marches off 5 for DOG.

I argued that there is no DOG for this, just that we should not grant the request. Our WH said that is normally true, but if it is granted, and it is discovered that there are no remaining TO's, then a DOG is charged. I said this applied only if the coach challenged a ruling on the field and it failed. I was overruled by the rest of the crew and let the issue drop.

2. Our WH nailed A 3 times for IS for breaking the huddle with 12. I reminded him that it is not the huddle that matters, but that the replaced player leave immediately. On all 3 occasions, as the 12th A player entered the huddle, the huddle broke, and the replaced player left the field immediately. The coach (on my sideline) never objected.

In the end, neither mattered, as it was a blowout. However, I felt it was setting a bad precedent, especially since this team is 5-0, ranked #2 in the state, and is likely to make it to the playoffs. And in the playoffs, the officials are more likely to get things right, and they may see things not called that were called during the season.

NCAA or Fed?\

If NCAA -
1 - No penalty for crew screwup.

2 - The rule prohibits the team from breaking the huddle with 12. Even if the sub comes in late and the replaced player leaves immediately, which happens to be at the same time the huddle breaks, foul

NF

I agree with the DOG foul, and your rules support is 3-6-2-f "any other conduct which unduly prolongs the game." His calling the TO and the official granting it and stopping the clock when they were out of TO's and the time was a factor is the issue.

The "breaking the huddle with 12" issue is something you are going to have to discuss with your R so he understands the rule. I would suggest you show him "additional example #2" in The Redding Study Guide. If you don't have it, here is the play.
"Team A huddles with nine players. Three substitutes enter the huddle which almost immediately breaks with 12 players. A45 runs to his sideline and leaves the field just before the snap. RULING Legal. It is not a foul to break a huddle with 12 players unless deception is involved or a replaced player fails to leave immediately.

I had a very heated exchange with the R on my crew following a playoff game last year in which he penalized A for breaking the huddle with 12. I've tried to talk some sense into him but he refuses to even consider that this is not a penalty. In fact, I think he took some special glee in calling this during our first game this season.

Walt, show him what I quoted in Reddings above. Better yet, show it to him if you or he has the book. It is additional example #2 at the end of the "Chapter 10 - Substitution and Participation" in The Redding Study Guide. Hard to argue that point.

Since the Fed ruling on the "huddle break" appears to be different than the NCAA, let me ask this...if they do break with 12 as in this scenario, does the U prevent a snap until Team B can see who is actually leaving the field and then send in any sub they want?

I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong but the spirit and intent of the rule is to keep A from deceiving B by having more than 11 "players" on the field. If a "substitute" comes on the field and tells a "player" he is being substituted just as the team breaks the huddle there is no deception. The "substitute" becomes a "player" and the "player" becomes a "replaced player."

I seem to recall NCAA stating a time interval of something like three seconds for the exchange.

Plus, it is not just breaking the huddle, it is 12 "players" on the field. If there are 11 players in the huddle and a "substitute" comes on the field and stays in the huddle without a "player" leaving the foul can be flagged when it is apparent no one is leaving the huddle.

Most of all we should use common sense in calling this foul -- is deception involved. How many times have you seen undisciplined teams foul up substitutions?

The WH should know how many timeouts are left and ignore request.
But he probably corrected his error with DOG.

The replaced player left immed. so no foul.

The WH errored when he blew his whistle & granted a TO. If no TO's are available, the request is to be ignored. Since the crew errored in stopping the 25 second clock for the TO, they bailed out A. IMHO, officiating mistake, A get a new 25 seconds, start a new RFP & move on.;)

Been there...done that. He's unwilling to accept any interp that isn't his own. It's not going to be my problem next year.

No, we don't delay the snap. Now the story may be different if we though A was attempting to deceive B by sending in late subs.

I think you need to allow a substitute for the WH. No penalty for that!

REPLY: Suudy...your WH needs a refresher course. He's really wrong on both plays.

Monte...I don't agree with your premise about Team A "...unduly prolonging the game." The game was prolonged by the officials' mistake of recognizing the non-existant TO. If they had ignored the request as they should have, Team A would have most likely 'earned' their DOG or rushed to get the play off. It's really all on the officials in this one.

Mike...no specific Fed techniques to hold the snap until it's clear who's leaving...at least not yet. Apparently, not a problem area.

waltjp...is your WH retiring this year...or are you?

So, Bob are you going to just wind the clock when you know they didn't have any TO's left but you granted them one and leave it at that? Why doesn't the NF have a rule against calling a TO when you don't have one like in BB. It seems like it would be a good rule change because in the heat of the battle, an officials error by granting a TO they don't have should not give them a timing advantage.

At one time ISTR either NCAA or NFL (maybe both) having such a rule, but I actually prefer leaving it on the officials to not grant the request. If they put one over on the officials intentionally or accidentally and get granted a stoppage, I think all you should do is correct that error ASAP without a penalty. Players, substitutes, and partisans of various kinds may distract officials during a game with claims of various sorts, and you don't penalize those, do you? The only exception I know of is feigning injury.

Would you want to penalize a request for a measurement based on your guess that the captain requesting it didn't really believe it was necessary?

Robert