substitution vs participation

[hawkishowl20]

Originally Posted by daggo66

Again you have to apply the correct rule. Your player did not enter the field during a down. Next.

I know it's not participation it’s an automatic substitution penalty. Your arguing for me now?

[hawkishowl20]

So, the new question would be if the official messes up by not counting timely why wouldn't the same penalty apply and why wouldn't he blow the whistle once he finishes counting?

[Ref inSoCA]

Offense cannot break w/<11

Don't throw that in. That is NOT an NF rule.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Ref inSoCA

Offense cannot break w/<11

Don't throw that in. That is NOT an NF rule.

In math terms:

< means 'less than'

I see no rule stating that the offense cannot break a huddle with less than 11 players.

[daggo66]

What 3 seconds? There is nothing in the book about 3 seconds, furthermore you are not even reading from the 2008 book! You are now arguing in circles. At first when I read your story I thought the official in question was an arrogant SOB. I've now decided that he is in fact a saint for not ejecting you. I new someone once who was mentally ill. We could have a disagreement and since the other persons point had no validity they would keep changing. Soon I would realize that we weren't even discussing the original topic and were in fact arguing about arguing. That is exactly the case here as well. I am finished with you and I would strongly suggest you seek professional help.

[hawkishowl20]

Originally Posted by daggo66

What 3 seconds? There is nothing in the book about 3 seconds, furthermore you are not even reading from the 2008 book! You are now arguing in circles. At first when I read your story I thought the official in question was an arrogant SOB. I've now decided that he is in fact a saint for not ejecting you. I new someone once who was mentally ill. We could have a disagreement and since the other persons point had no validity they would keep changing. Soon I would realize that we weren't even discussing the original topic and were in fact arguing about arguing. That is exactly the case here as well. I am finished with you and I would strongly suggest you seek professional help.

It looks like it is in the book. If it isn't what is the new definition?