Illegal play

[kenlopez]

Team A breaks the huddle after the ready. # 83 heads for the side line. Stops short of the sideline. Faces the coaches, talks to them. Team A snaps the ball. #83 is all alone. He runs down field catches the pass. Scores.
What do we have?


K

[Jim D]

If A83 is trying to deceive the opponents, this is illegal. Without seeing exactly how this plays out, I would rule it as illegal participation on A83 for pretending a substitution.

[yankeesfan]

#83 met all requirements as long as he is inside the 9 yard mark after the ready for play and he is set before the snap, i see nothing wrong with this play. he can go out as wide as he wants to line up, if he steps out of bounce and steps back in then thats a different story.

[Ed Hickland]

It ain't black and it ain't white, but sure enough borders on illegal deception.

If a coach came to me before the game and told me he runs this play my answer would be it is illegal and if you run it a USC will be charged to you and the TD nullified.

But I must say seeing it in a game without warning you really have to think about it. Coaches yell all the time at their players. If this is the 4th quarter and the coach had been doing all game, let it go. But if this is the first time, bang him!

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by kenlopez

Team A breaks the huddle after the ready. # 83 heads for the side line. Stops short of the sideline. Faces the coaches, talks to them. Team A snaps the ball. #83 is all alone. He runs down field catches the pass. Scores.
What do we have?

CANADIAN RULING:

There is nothing illegal about this play with the information given.

It could be illegal in other circumstances; the play is the same with more info given.

[waltjp]

Offensive player standing near his sideline with his back to the field and seemingly having a conversation with his coach??? Sounds as if he's acting as if he's not a player.

Unsportsmanlike Conduct.

[bossman72]

What rule (NFHS) covers deceptive plays being unsportsmanlike?

[MJT]

It is an IP foul. Covered in rule 9-6-4-d. The player is definitely trying to deceive the opponents and it is covered in the above rule.

Now, if there were no substitutes at all and he just stopped close to the sideline and lined up like normal (facing downfield and not talking to the coaches), you'd have no foul.

If he was with other players and they went off the field but he stopped short of OOB's and lined up normal, you'd have an IP foul per the above rule.

Football is a game of deception like snapping the ball on 2 or 3, using voice inflection, going in motion,... but when a team uses verbaige or actions at or just before the snap that deceive the defense, that is when the deception is viewed as illegal. This is covered in rule 9-6-4-d and e, and in case play 9.9.3.b. By facing the coaches and talking to them he is using verbaige and actions which are not normal before a snap and violating the rule.

[ljudge]

Well even if you didn't rule IP it's possible you could have an illegal formation. If he's facing the coaches (meaning with his body facing the sideline) then he's not legally on the line so if there's only 6 other live bodies on the line (facing the opponent's goal line) then you could have illegal formation.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by kenlopez

Team A breaks the huddle after the ready. # 83 heads for the side line. Stops short of the sideline. Faces the coaches, talks to them. Team A snaps the ball. #83 is all alone. He runs down field catches the pass. Scores.
What do we have?

The fact that he was "all alone" (i.e. left alone by the defense) raises our suspicion from the description, but we'd have to see it to answer the question of whether this was:

• a simulated substitution; or, in Fed,
• giving the appearance of being "not ready", the snap not imminent.

AFAIK when NCAA adopted its current substitution rules to try to eliminate "hideout" (Canadian: "sleeper") plays, they didn't eliminate more general provisions by which a team could be judged to have illegally simulated a substitution even if the specific rules were complied with, but they did take most of such judgement calls out of the picture.

Robert

[wisref2]

This is using a pretend substitution to deceive the defense. Classic IP.

[Reffing Rev.]

I would not be so quick to call this a fake substitution. It is obviously an attempt at deception, but so is a play action pass. Assuming formation is legal, having broken the huddle after the ready for play, (not a usual time for a substitution) it might come down to what is being said between the player and the coach, as a player coming near the sideline to confer with coaches between downs is legal, and not considered a substitution or a conference. If the player is screaming "am I out" or the sideline is screaming, "get off the field" then yes fake substitution. Otherwise you have little ground to stand on defining this as illegal participation. In my opinion.

[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.

[Jim D]

The NF has been pretty clear over the years that attempts to fool the defense into thinking a player is not a part of the play are illegal. They have talked about and ruled against pretended injuries, fake substitution, hanging out by the sideline, not ready to play (where is the tee, wrong ball) and other similar types of plays that are designed to make the opponent relax or disregard a player.

Obviously they can't think of or list every possible ruse, but this would be among the illegal ploys. 83 would seem to be trying to fool the defense into thinking he's coming off the field so don't they will not be paying attention to him. Call it IP or USC, but call it.

[Reffing Rev.]

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.

THen call a timeout everytime the QB goes to the sideline to get the play, as this is talking to a coach, which is apparently not football action. Talking to the coach is not pretending to not participate in the play otherwise the QB would be pretending to leave the game between downs. The 9-yard mark rule was put in play to allow this play with proper procedures. Or perhaps we should forbid players from being outside the 9 yard marks in any circumstances (we'd have more room to work). Or perhaps we take all coaches off the sideline since they cannot communcate with players.

Facts:

Going outside the 9 yard marks after the ready = not a foul
Talking to a coach between downs = not a foul

Fake substitution = foul, but nothing here makes it a fake substitution. Would it change your mind if the receiver was facing the LOS and talking to the sideline, aside from a requirment for being on the LOS direction a player is facing is of no value. He is all alone, no pretend substitution going on. Don't bale out the defense for missing an assignment. Its not like they took 3 players off the field and left one of them in, or had a player go in motion on a b-line towards his sideline (which are covered in various resources from NFHS).