Last season, in a similar thread i said something along the lines of a silent snap count from under center fits the qualification of a snap not being imminent. Many people told me that was okay because it has been a part of football. It is legal deception. Apparently the only difference between legal deception and illegal deception is how old the deception is.

Now, I am not adovacting this type of play, and I would flag it every Friday night. I agree on the snap not imminent concept, I just hear it more like the defense arguing, "we weren't ready yet, can we have a do over" Where will the line be drawn. My common sense and your's are different.

What can the QB do prior to a direct snap to another back?
Parralel motion?
Silent (legal) motion towards coach?

Here is a serious question...
QB under center steps back to "call out an audible to wide receiver" ball is snapped to HB? I've got a hard time flagging that one.

The rule says "actions or verbiage designed to confuse the defense into believing there is problem and a snap isn’t imminent"

On a silent snap count the offense stands there and says nothing and the ball is snapped. They didn't do any actions or verbiage of any kind; so there can't be a foul for actions or verbiage designed to make the defense think the snap is not imminent.

If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck and it walks like a duck it's probably a duck.

http://www.fascinationst.com/productImages/sku2353.jpg

No, but the rules (and experience) do tell us which and why some things are fouls as soon as they happen and why some aren't fouls until they go uncorrected prior to the snap.

If the case book says you shut it down when you see it, I'm fine with that. We all know that the books say lots of things that we don't always do.

I'm just saying it's inconsistent given other fouls that we give A time to correct prior to the snap. "Wrong ball" is a 99.9 percenter. The play referenced in the OP doesn't rise to that level UNTIL there's a (deceptive) snap, IMHO and for the reasons I outlined above.

Overthinking? Fair enough.

Reffing Rev/Rob
How can you interpret snapping on Set or without a count to be decieving the defense into thinking the snap is not immenent.
With the offense in position and set the defense is waiting and expecting the ball to be put into play.

With the topic descussed however, an offensive player is doing actions not typical of a football play respectively actions that are typical of a request to stop play in football. This can be interpreted as the snap no longer being immenent.

Yes, you wait for them to snap it at which point it becomes a foul and the ball is dead, USC foul.

I agree. The Bible doesn't agree, though.

But that is what the case play says. You can't call it a foul until the ball is snapped because maybe the guy is going to get a tee or something from the sideline.

9.9.3 SITUATION B: From a field goal formation, potential kicker A1 yells, "Where’s the tee?" A2 replies, "I'll go get it" and goes legally in motion toward his team’s sideline. Ball is snapped to A1 who throws a touchdown pass to A2.

RULING: Unsportsmanlike conduct prior to snap. The ball should be declared dead and the foul enforced as a dead-ball foul.

The fact the QB goes under center, then turns toward the bench leads one to believe a snap is not imminent under NFHS rules is unsportsmanlike conduct. The play should be blown dead immediately.

Whoa, just turning toward the bench? With no other indication that he or his teammates are not ready? What if that's just his shifting or going MIM? I have video from the 1940s of a "turnstile" QB. On plays where he wasn't getting the snap he'd start rotating just prior to the snap, opening the path for the ball to go thru. It had nothing to do with misleading the defense into thinking the snap was not imminent. (Of course, if that was in the era of the ban on coaching from the sidelines, getting a signal from the bench would've been illegal anyway.)

Robert

So if the QB goes under center, then turns and goes in motion AWAY from his bench, you're OK with that? You would let that play run?

I think OverAndBack is getting confused with the language in the case book. I did too until I read it about 5 times.

If a play includes actions or verbiage intended to deceive PRIOR to the snap then the foul is a dead ball foul. You have to wait until the snap to decide that, but the play is then blown dead and the foul enforced as a dead ball foul because THE CONDUCT OCCURRED BEFORE THE SNAP, even though you can't recognize it until the snap.

At least that's how I interpret it.

And that's fine with me. But the language is a little ambiguous. In any case, you enforce it as a dead ball foul, so I'm fine with that. The other fouls that aren't fouls until the snap are enforced as live ball fouls, this one would be an exception. That's fine.