What is your call?

[mikesears]

Just got done talking with my LJ from our game Friday night. He tells me about something that happened during the game that I wanted to ask you all about.

Here is what I saw as R.
Team A is coming to the line. Team B is a little confused about the defense. All of a sudden, I hear my substitute (and relatively new) umpire whistle and I see a B1 trying to get his chinstrap buttoned. He fiddles with it for a couple of seconds and gets it snapped. No problem. I blow the ready for play again and off we go.

Here is what my LJ saw.
Team B was really confused about what defense they were playing and player B1 INTENTIONALLY unsnapped his chin strap and went to the U with his "equipment problem". He takes a couple of seconds and finally gets the helmet snapped. Coach comments afterwards how smart his player was to unbutton his chinstrap to get some time to clear the confusion.

How would you handle this if you were the LJ?

[mbyron]

I'm curious how the LJ could determine that the act was intentional. If he's really that sure, I suppose you could call an unsportsmanlike foul on the player. Otherwise, I'd let it go.

By the time the LJ hears the coach remarking on it, isn't it too late to flag it?

[Mike L]

I'd probably tell the coach "yeah, but if he intentionally does it again you are going to draw a delay of game foul".
He better be sure about the intentional part.

[mikesears]

The player reached up, undid the properly snapped strap, then went to the umpire for the equipment timeout, and then just snapped it again. My LJ has 11 years of experience but I think the act caught him by surprise.

[kdf5]

The problem is that if you call it failure to wear required equipment, that's a delay of game penalty, the clock starts on the snap so you've actually stopped the clock for this ploy.

[JugglingReferee]

B has an equipment problem. Substitution is required for this player.

[bigjohn]

Rule 9 SECTION 9 UNFAIR ACTS
ART. 1 . . . A player or nonplayer or person(s) not subject to the rules shall not
hinder play by an unfair act which has no specific rule coverage.

PENALTY: Unfair act – the referee enforces any penalty he considers equitable,
including the award of a score – (S27

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by kdf5

The problem is that if you call it failure to wear required equipment, that's a delay of game penalty, the clock starts on the snap so you've actually stopped the clock for this ploy.

True, you'll have to stop the clock to adminsiter any penalty, but if the R feels they are doing it to conserve time illegally, then he could run it on the ready. Personally, I'd probably go with whatever the clock was doing at the time of the foul unless time in the half is running out & A is trying to score.
Hitting them for 15 on this seems awfully onerous.

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by Mike L

True, you'll have to stop the clock to adminsiter any penalty, but if the R feels they are doing it to conserve time illegally, then he could run it on the ready. Personally, I'd probably go with whatever the clock was doing at the time of the foul unless time in the half is running out & A is trying to score.
Hitting them for 15 on this seems awfully onerous.

Right, but a failure to wear required equipment foul comes with 3 signals and one of them is a delay of game signal so you start on the snap. I agree the R could go on the ready but you've then also taken time to explain to the R why he needs to go on the ready which also gives them time to reorganize. I don't think there's much you can do about this and it's probably an isolated incident. I like the idea of the wing explaining he undid it himself and he needs to go out for a play.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by kdf5

Right, but a failure to wear required equipment foul comes with 3 signals and one of them is a delay of game signal so you start on the snap. I agree the R could go on the ready but you've then also taken time to explain to the R why he needs to go on the ready which also gives them time to reorganize. I don't think there's much you can do about this and it's probably an isolated incident. I like the idea of the wing explaining he undid it himself and he needs to go out for a play.

Yeah, but you'll still have to stop things to send him out, make the explanation why he's going out, and wait for a sub to come in. You end up giving them just as much time for them to get organized but they really don't pay any price for it other than taking out 1 player for 1 play. I guess I'd rather have them pay up 5 yds and move along.

[Robert Goodman]

This is one of many things team B could do to prevent a quick play, possibly a scoring one, by A. I think you have to look at it and decide how badly B is beaten if they let the ball be snapped.

I think decades back someone in the office at either Fed or NCAA, when I was visiting them, said that in such a case no more than a standard penalty for USC would be justified, not an open ended unfair act equitable penalty. Which if it's true means a player of B who realizes in time what's going on can buy the prevention of a likely score for the price of a USC. The most reliable way, if they're close to the ball, would be for such a player to simply fall on it, because then officials couldn't just ignore it as they could with an encroachment "you didn't see", etc.

Robert

[bigjohn]

It is not unsportsmanlike conduct it is hindering by using a tactic that is not really forbidden by rule.

9-9 is perfect and if the R feels a 15 penalty and start the clock and run ten seconds off he has rule support to do that.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Mike L

Hitting them for 15 on this seems awfully onerous.

The first time it happens? Second?

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by mbyron

The first time it happens? Second?

First time, no. Second time, probably not. But I can guarantee there is going to be a strong warning to the coach that if it happens again he's going to elevate to a USC.

[mikesears]

Just to make it clear. Time remaining in the quarter wasn't the issue. This was about 8 minutes to go in the 3rd quarter (or so). It was done simply because B was confused about the defense they were playing.