Trick Play from Memphis-Louisville Game
 

Trick play from Memphis-Louisville game:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uG1MfoWXpnU

I'd flag this under FED rules.

I'm assuming you would flag it because it's not in the spirit of the rules/game, and that's more than just natural deception? Other than that I can't see any reason to flag it.

If anyone were to flag it, how would you approach the coach after that, assuming he's upset you penalized him?

same as wrong ball play in Fed
 

The Case Book is clear: Any action or verbage designed to make the defense think the snap is not iminent is ... unsportsmanlike conduct

I agree. So who here will be seeing this play this weekend?

Many will see it, and many will be taken by surprise and allow it.

I'm always looking for ways to defuse crap like that. One thing you could do: grant the timeout. The coach will complain, and you can say: "Coach, if you go ahead with that trick play, it'll cost you 15 yards. This way, it costs only a timeout. Your choice."

Friday night, I flag this as a referee...Saturday (or DIII JV game) I let it go.

I'm betting the coach would be upset because I just told him that his latest brilliant idea was illegal. He'll probably go on about how revolutionary this idea is and how it's only for the kids and other fans and officials think it's great, but in the end it's still illegal. As BMR said, actions or verbiage designed...

To be honest I don't see the issue under NFHS rules. He didn't ask for a time out. His signal was a common one for when a QB wants the offensive coordinator to run through the signals again, and the snap was pretty much right away so no one was fooled.

No one fooled?
 

Maybe you should watch the video again. Louisville is preparing to blitz 3 or 4 players on the edge. As soon as the quarterback turns, the stand up and relax. If the play had gone outside, they would have been caught of guard. Under fed, this is a situation that is clearly illegal and must be called. There are a number of things that can be done in NCAA but not in Fed, this is one of them.

NCAA has an "obviously unfair acts" clause which could be used here IMHO

Unless the QB said something, or someone on the sidline said something, I still have nothing. He just turned and walked away roling his hands as if he was looking for a new set of signals from the sideline.

The thing was, that wasn't a valid time out signal. That was just a....rolling of the hands (I have no idea what he may have said while making that signal). But unless I hear the words "time out" from someone who can call a time out OR if I see the hands crossed in a T (preferably both), if they have a time out and the ball isn't live, I'm granting the time out.

Now, if NCAA has a rule akin to ours about verbalizations or acts designed to make the defense believe the snap is not imminent, then there's your out. And I'm not letting this go in an NFHS game or a Pop Warner game.

That would be a foul at the snap, right? Live ball foul? If they score, they score, but you're bringing it back?

So the QB walking away from the center rolling his hands as if he is looking for a new set of signals from the sideline does NOT communicate the snap is not imminent to you?

So if that is the case, how are his actions not actions that would lead the defense to believe the snap was not imminent?

Dead ball foul in FED. Kill it as soon as you recognize it.

Case Book

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.

COMMENT: Football has been and always will be a game of deception and trickery involving multiple shifts, unusual formations and creative plays. However, actions or verbiage designed to confuse the defense into believing there is problem and a snap isn’t imminent is beyond the scope of sportsmanship and is illegal.

Okay, I get that. But bear with me for a second...a quarterback who comes out from behind center...(so far we have nothing)...walks to a part of the field...(so far we still have nothing)...makes some hand motion that is not a time out (so far still nothing)...says or doesn't say something that may or may not be even English or football-related (still nothing)...could still, conceivably (if there's time on the play clock), get the signal, nod his head, walk up and go back under center and run a play with everybody ready for the snap, correct?

I understand the "where's the tee?" stuff and the "I'll go get it" bit and it's obviously deception that's not sportsmanlike, but until there's an actual snap that IS deceptive, you're kinda making a judgment call (that may be pre-emptive). I know, we make judgment calls all the time, but in the Memphis case above (let's assume it happened in NFHS, just for argument's sake), the quarterback could STILL have gone back under center and run a completely legal play, correct? And, you'd assume, the defense would see that and line up and be ready for it.

I'm just sayin'. We let a team that's shifting illegally or that has a bad formation get itself in proper alignment because it's not a foul until they actually snap the ball. I know what the casebook says about the "missing tee" instance (and it probably applies to the "wrong ball" type thing, too), but the specific play in the original post may or may not rise to that same level depending on the verbiage used.

I say if the ball is snapped while the QB is walking away like that, I kill the play immediately and penalize USC. You are correct that everything they did up to the snap was legal and he can get back under center. That would be fine. But that's not what ultimately happened here.

Here's the key phrase:

actions or verbiage designed to confuse the defense into believing there is problem and a snap isn’t imminent is beyond the scope of sportsmanship and is illegal

Watch the video and check out how the defense reacts when the QB turns away from the snapper.

Good point, I hadn't really focused on their reaction before. The linebackers that are positioned to rush all stand up and relax, the ball is then snapped.

Fair enough. I guess it's no different than gauging intent for an intentional grounding or something similar. You'd better be right, though, and until there actually IS a snap that came while the defense believed it wasn't imminent, it's a tricky situation.

I see what you're saying, but I also see the point of view that they COULD make things right, no harm, no foul, before the snap. Not THAT snap, obviously. But a normal snap.

Would anybody rule differently if he had gone down the line to talk to a receiver? Just asking because my thought is that if they are conversing or signaling with the sideline then I'm calling this every time. It is that portion of it that makes it suspect in my mind. I think there are forms of deception that include snaping the ball to someone other than the center such as my description that should be allowed, but once you move toward the sideline or make a signal in the vicinity of the ref, we've got a penalty.

Very true, which is why you hold the flag and whistle until the snap. I had a similar play in a JV game a couple of weeks ago. 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.

At this point the warning flags in my head were raised. When the ball was snapped I was ready for it. This was the first snap from scrimmage in the second half. Fortunately one of the other officials and I were just discussing this type of play during half time.

If it doesn't look like a football play it probably isn't.

Are you not allowed to move closer to the coach that may be giving you a legitimate play call signal?

What if the signal made in the vicinity of the ref is the one made in the video above? What's that supposed to mean?

Sometimes quarterbacks and/or receivers will tap the tops of their helmets, which has a meaning to them. What if a guy makes a peace sign? A shadow puppet? Another signal that means, in the team's parlance, "I didn't understand, give me the signal again?"

How do we know? I got nothing until either the ball is snapped or the "hey, that's the wrong ball" type situation. Your umpire should know if it's the wrong ball. And, you know what? If it's an approved ball and it's been set and the RFP has blown, I don't care, you're playing with that ball, so it ain't working on me.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.