Wrong Ball Play

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

no one has to say anything. ACTIONS or VERBIAGE

actions or verbiage designed to confuse

A22 acts as if he has injured a ankle but refuses assistance when asked by the referee if he is ok. during the next play he limps but doesn't participate directly in the play. On the next play, A22 goes in motion with a very severe limp, but at the snap he tears down the field, with a miracle cure and catches a long pass? Any problems? Any foul?

This is a play where I think you are going to get a very split answer. There is no absolute coverage of this play in the rule book and Reddigs is only a guide. I see a difference in faking the injury to a point where the defense doesn't think the snap is imminent and just a hobbling player in motion. For me, the former gets a flag and the latter does not.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

Rule 9-5-1d covers this situation. This is the rule for USC and the example is "using disconcerting acts or words prior to the snap in an attempt to interfere with A's signals or movements".

I've always thought that was just to cover trying to simulate A's snap count or other such signal, or trying to drown out their signals, especially since it doesn't say anything about A's trying to simulate B's shift or assignment signals. I never thought it would cover something like simulating a play clock count from the sideline, though "signals" doesn't say it's limited to on-field signals.

I was also thinking of cases where A's sideline falsely gives a play clock count to make B think the snap is coming sooner than it actually is.

Robert

[sloth]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

This is a play where I think you are going to get a very split answer. There is no absolute coverage of this play in the rule book and Reddigs is only a guide. I see a difference in faking the injury to a point where the defense doesn't think the snap is imminent and just a hobbling player in motion. For me, the former gets a flag and the latter does not.

I'll make it even easier. As the white hat, I'm not going to allow a player whom is visably hurt to play. It's a huge liability for my and my crew and if it's visable enough for B to notice, then I or my other officials had also better notice.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by sloth

I'll make it even easier. As the white hat, I'm not going to allow a player whom is visably hurt to play. It's a huge liability for my and my crew and if it's visable enough for B to notice, then I or my other officials had also better notice.

I agree. I see a player hobbling along to the point it appears he's injured to me, I'm calling an injury time out and off he goes. And I pity the coach that comes up to me to complain it was all an act & I ruined his "play".

[ref1986]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

Rule 9-5-1d covers this situation. This is the rule for USC and the example is "using disconcerting acts or words prior to the snap in an attempt to interfere with A's signals or movements".

bison,

The problem is that 9-5-1d applies to acts and words by players. A player is someone in the game. "Players" on the sideline are covered under 9-8 and there is nothing in 9-8 to justify a foul on this.

I'm not calling anything. If the QB is dumb enough to rely on the opposing bench to tell him how much time he has, rather than looking to the BJ, he deserves what he got. How stupid can you get?

[parepat]

Let me change it up. Saw a video of this from a college game.

A lines up in shotgun. A snaps the ball to the QB. All A players stay in there stances and do not move. Quaterback stops and looks relaxed. B players stand up and don't move. A-80 the receiver jets down the field and the QB then throws to him for a TD.

My inclination is that this is illegal. However, the rules don't address it specifically.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by parepat

Let me change it up. Saw a video of this from a college game.

A lines up in shotgun. A snaps the ball to the QB. All A players stay in there stances and do not move. Quaterback stops and looks relaxed. B players stand up and don't move. A-80 the receiver jets down the field and the QB then throws to him for a TD.

My inclination is that this is illegal. However, the rules don't address it specifically.

Why should the rules protect B from being stupid?

[Jim D.]

Originally Posted by parepat

Let me change it up. Saw a video of this from a college game.

A lines up in shotgun. A snaps the ball to the QB. All A players stay in there stances and do not move. Quaterback stops and looks relaxed. B players stand up and don't move. A-80 the receiver jets down the field and the QB then throws to him for a TD.

My inclination is that this is illegal. However, the rules don't address it specifically.

At the point everyone stopped and the QB looked relaxed I'd blow the whistle and kill the play to protect relaxed players from being hit. Saftey first, boys! If A failed to advance, that's their option - the down counts.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Jim D.

At the point everyone stopped and the QB looked relaxed I'd blow the whistle and kill the play to protect relaxed players from being hit. Saftey first, boys! If A failed to advance, that's their option - the down counts.

By that logic you could whistle a play dead any time there's a pretended runner. After faking receiving a handoff...why...he might be tackled by mistake...and not be ready for it!

The aforementioned play is no more than an extreme example of a bootleg or bootleg pass. Many times a QB will look relaxed after having pretended to hand the ball off. Are you going to blow the play dead because some players of B may have relaxed once they thought he no longer had the ball?

Robert

[svm1010]

Originally Posted by Mike L

Why should the rules protect B from being stupid?

Cause this isn't about being stupid. This is about it being a football play versus some adminstrative bull crap. Every foodball play is suposed to start the same way via a legal snap (not counting free kicks for you strict interpretationists) That's what the kids are trained for. Now you can argue that this is a legal snap even through it does not pass between the snapper's legs, but this play isn't football, this is a "hah hah Fooled you." Trick plays such as play action, fake punt, swinging gate, and onside kicks are football plays, this isn't. Blow it dead and march em back.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by svm1010

Cause this isn't about being stupid. This is about it being a football play versus some adminstrative bull crap. Every foodball play is suposed to start the same way via a legal snap (not counting free kicks for you strict interpretationists) That's what the kids are trained for. Now you can argue that this is a legal snap even through it does not pass between the snapper's legs, but this play isn't football, this is a "hah hah Fooled you." Trick plays such as play action, fake punt, swinging gate, and onside kicks are football plays, this isn't. Blow it dead and march em back.

It's "hah hah" only because of the "wrong ball" aspect. Otherwise, you're saying the snap "isn't football" just because it's unusual. Even one of the plays you listed, swinging gate, uses an unusual form of snap.

Has it occurred to you that snapping the ball by turning around with it could have deceptive and tactical advantages? At Coach Huey's we're having a discussion about various sorts of advantages that could be gained by unusual forms of snap. One thought is that the turnaround snap could end with the ball's being taken by a back in fly motion, same as the usual motion of the quarterback but eliminating the middleman. Then, because the snapper would have turned to face backward by a motion of both feet, he's eligible to take the ball back by a forward handoff.

If the rules makers wanted to restrict the snap further, they could do so -- as has been done in Canadian football and some forms of touch football, which require the snap to pass between the legs. The only thing the American football rulesmakers wanted to do was to avoid rugby's situation where the live ball could remain in scrimmage for a significant time.

Robert

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by svm1010

Cause this isn't about being stupid. This is about it being a football play versus some adminstrative bull crap. Every foodball play is suposed to start the same way via a legal snap (not counting free kicks for you strict interpretationists) That's what the kids are trained for. Now you can argue that this is a legal snap even through it does not pass between the snapper's legs, but this play isn't football, this is a "hah hah Fooled you." Trick plays such as play action, fake punt, swinging gate, and onside kicks are football plays, this isn't. Blow it dead and march em back.

There's a lot of things I was going to say to this, but decided it would just be better to ask, under what rule do you intend to penalize them? Or is it just because you don't approve of the play you "need" to shut it down?

[svm1010]

Legal Snap or Not. Use Rule 9.9.1 (or 5) Unfair acts

Just about every case book I have laid eyes on including the 09 edition has the passage "*9.9.1 SITUATION B .... COMMENT: Football has been and always been a game of deception and trickery involving multiple shifts, unusual formations, and creative plays. However, actions or verbiage designed to confuse the defenseinto believing there is a problem and a snap isn't imminent is beyond the scope of sportsmanship and is illegal." (true this is the "where's the Tee" play but I put them in the same category)

Do yourself a favor and shut this play down as soon as you recognize it. Go deal with the coach (who is going to be even madder if you let the kid run the length of the field for an apparent TD before you blow the whistle) Rule 9.9 allows the Referee to levy an equitable penalty so a USC is not necessary. Perhaps a request to replay the down with a different play called. Delay of Game is another alternative if you feel the coach is taking advantage of a situation. Only bad things can happen if this play gets called. Don't make it worse by actually letting them run it.

[Jim D.]

There is no hard and fast rule about what is legal deception and what isn't legal. Just about every football play has some measure of deception in it.

While deception within the play is acceptable under the rules (bootlegs, flea flickers, etc.) it also seems like the rules makes don't approve deception on the status of the whole play (where's the tee, wrong ball). This seems to me that type of play so I will not allow it. I have no problem explaining to a coach why I either blew it dead (protect the players) or penalized it for USC.

I don't agree on giving him a do-over, though.