Snap not imminent - 2007 CIF Championship Trick Play?

[ljudge]

For you newer guys reading this stuff don't get confused about an unsportsmanlike conduct foul being a succeeding spot foul. It is, but in this case it's considered to have occurred PRIOR to the snap even though a snap technically takes place. Simply shut down the play IMMEDIATELY by blowing your whistle. It's NOT considered an inadvertent whistle to do so in this case.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by ljudge

For you newer guys reading this stuff don't get confused about an unsportsmanlike conduct foul being a succeeding spot foul. It is, but in this case it's considered to have occurred PRIOR to the snap even though a snap technically takes place. Simply shut down the play IMMEDIATELY by blowing your whistle. It's NOT considered an inadvertent whistle to do so in this case.

Good interpretation. You know it could be argued the USC did not occur until the ball was snapped making it a succeeding spot foul but if you think about it the foul begins when the player starts the action of walking away making the defense think a snap is not imminent.

Remember a few years ago when Kurt Warner was with St. Louis and Mike Martz was the head coach they did one of those "walk away" things.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

Good interpretation. You know it could be argued the USC did not occur until the ball was snapped making it a succeeding spot foul but if you think about it the foul begins when the player starts the action of walking away making the defense think a snap is not imminent.

I'd classify it among attempts to put the ball in play illegally, the ball remaining dead.

[seeitfairly]

I was at the CIF state championship games with a group of officials and some colleagues of ours and saw the play you are questioning.

That tactic has been tried multiple times in a variety of ways by many teams. It is a distraction type of play and nothing the game has not seen before.

The QB basically went in "motion" while signaling toward the bench, at that point it was obvious to us the football was to be snapped to the remaining Back in the shotgun set.

[wisref2]

And the signals toward the bench make it an illegal play (based on the way it was described).

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by seeitfairly

I was at the CIF state championship games with a group of officials and some colleagues of ours and saw the play you are questioning.

That tactic has been tried multiple times in a variety of ways by many teams. It is a distraction type of play and nothing the game has not seen before.

Which is why it has since been made illegal.

Originally Posted by seeitfairly

The QB basically went in "motion" while signaling toward the bench, at that point it was obvious to us the football was to be snapped to the remaining Back in the shotgun set.

"Actions or verbiage designed to confuse the defense into believing there is a problem and the snap is not imminent is illegal," ...and is USC, etc. etc. How does that play not fit that description? It's no different, in intent, design, theory, and application, than the "wrong ball" or "missing tee" plays, which are both illegal. 9.9.3.B.