Illegal play

[waltjp]

Rev, you're on the wrong side of this argument.

NFHS Case Book

9.9.3 Situation B:
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.

[refbuz]

Based on the way that the play is described, The fact that 83 was "left alone" by B is what makes it a foul in my eyes. A is giving the impression that 83 is not going to be part of the play.

Now, if B ignores the "conversation" lines up across from 83 and just gets beat I have nothing, as the ploy obviously did not deceive B.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by wisref2

Sorry Reffing, have to disagree. The rule is intended to prevent such actions. #83 is pretending to not be participating in the play. (insert normal "have to see it" statement here)

A play-action pass uses normal football actions for deception. Standing and talking to a coach is not normal football action and the rule is designed to prevent such tom-foolery. This is football, not theatre club.

But "have to see it" (and in this case hear it too) is not merely a pro forma disclaimer. I could easily imagine the original description as not being of an attempt at that type of deception, and the fact that A83 wound up "all alone" as being because of a defensive lapse.

Robert

[Bob M.]

REPLY: Through 2001, the illegal participation rule prohibited the use of a substitute or replaced player in a pretended substitution. Then someone dreamed up this play where it's a player who is pretending to be subbed for. In 2002...voila...they changed the rule to include players. Regardless of nine-yard marks, even a valid player is prohibited from pretending to be substituted for in order to deceive the defense.