Trick Play from Memphis-Louisville Game

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by waltjp

. The offense came to the line and got set. The QB then stepped away and started walking to his sideline and calling out something to his coach.

So what if the QB isn't saying anything to the coach or sideline? What if he simply walks toward the end of his line - legally going in motion - and the ball is snapped directly to the fullback. Is that legal?

[OverAndBack]

Does it depend on whether or not he's gone under center and whether or not the act of removing himself from under center prior to going in motion simulates a snap?

If the quarterback yells something like "I forgot the play" or "Give me that again," a non-cynical person might conclude that he really forgot the play or wasn't clear on it - unless they then snap it to one of the up backs and he tries to score, then it becomes pretty obvious that it was a deceptive play that goes outside the realm of normal football deceptions. Then I'm flagging it - and letting the play run (I guess) and sorting it out afterwards. Supposin' the upback fumbles and B recovers?

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

Then I'm flagging it - and letting the play run (I guess) and sorting it out afterwards. Supposin' the upback fumbles and B recovers?

Do call live ball offsides fouls instead of dead ball encroachment also? It isn't your job to decide which fouls keep the ball from becoming live.

[ajmc]

Is it reasonable to suggest we are just football officials, not crafty defense lawyers arguing a case before the Supreme Court. Any coach who does not clearly understand the "Where's the "T" play", and anything remotely similar, is fatally toxic, is in the wrong business.

That is an absolute, "don't go there" situation and any coach who tries to squeeze out the latest variation of that type nonsense because of some minute differentiation, is knowingly risking playing with fire and has earned any USC flag he is presented with.

The best way to end any silly experimentation and quest for a variation that sneaks by, is to ensure the application of an USC penalty as consistently as possible. There is no reason, no excuse, no logic or argument for the results of such a farce to be allowed to stand.

[grantsrc]

Originally Posted by ajmc

The best way to end any silly experimentation and quest for a variation that sneaks by, is to ensure the application of an USC penalty as consistently as possible. There is no reason, no excuse, no logic or argument for the results of such a farce to be allowed to stand.

Agreed. There is no reason that a play like this should be allowed by rule.

[Robert Goodman]

As I think about the Fed rule, it makes me wonder whether the lines around it are too fuzzy. What about the unusual but not too rare tactic of snapping the ball on the signal of "ready" or "set", where that word usually precedes the snap count? The word is used in the hope that the defense will think the snap is not imminent.

Robert

[Reffing Rev.]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

As I think about the Fed rule, it makes me wonder whether the lines around it are too fuzzy. What about the unusual but not too rare tactic of snapping the ball on the signal of "ready" or "set", where that word usually precedes the snap count? The word is used in the hope that the defense will think the snap is not imminent.

Robert

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.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by Reffing Rev.

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.

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.

[jjrye22]

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.

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by LDUB

Do call live ball offsides fouls instead of dead ball encroachment also? It isn't your job to decide which fouls keep the ball from becoming live.

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.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

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.

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

[OverAndBack]

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

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

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.