Rule 9-6-4d

[whitehat]

I beleive technically, by rule, it is legal. thatis it meets the mechanical rules (withine the 9yard mark,etc...Yet, at the same time illegal (I'm sure that helps) because the intent as I judge it here is to deceive the opponent. Of course play action pass is an attempt to deceive the opponet too...so go figure but I guess deception only applies to certain substitute situations...

This a quote from the casebook play you cited: Illegal "if the official judges that A was using a replaced player or substitute in a substitution or pretended substitution to deceive the opponents." Or, in other words, "legal" if not judged to be deceptive and (implied) it meats other rules restrictions

I am also thinking this is one of those that unless the crew was briefed before hand to watch for this it is going to slip by most crews, even experienced ones...

Bullycon are you in the Nashville area? Not sure why I think that but maybe something I read from one of your posts?

[Bullycon]

Originally Posted by whitehat

Bullycon are you in the Nashville area? Not sure why I think that but maybe something I read from one of your posts?

Chattanooga area. Big Titans and Predators fan, though.

[bigjohn]

COMMENT: It is becoming prevalent to see
more than 11 players/replaced players in a team’s huddle or in the defensive formation
between downs. The replaced player is to leave the field immediately and
in such a manner that it does not confuse or deceive the opponents. (3-7-1)
Edit/Delete Message

[BAlaxer]

usually I go with the college interpertaion of 2-3 seconds to leave the huddle

[ajmc]

This is not intended to be rocket science and the imtent should be crystal clear. It is not legal to use substitutions in ANY way to deceive your opponent by hiding a player.

To try and do this is absolute BS, and those who try and weasleword their way into it by trying to extend the bright red line the rule implies deserve every consequence they earn.

Nailing those who insist on trying to split hairs to achieve this illegal activity by trying to fudge the line, is the best way possible to send this entire idea of play calling to the scrap heap of garbage on where it belongs.

[bigjohn]

The rule says, player, sub or pretended sub.


d. To use a player, replaced player, substitute, coach, trainer or other attendant
in a substitution or pretended substitution to deceive opponents at or
immediately before the snap or free kick.

[Bullycon]

Originally Posted by ajmc

This is not intended to be rocket science and the imtent should be crystal clear. It is not legal to use substitutions in ANY way to deceive your opponent by hiding a player.

To try and do this is absolute BS, and those who try and weasleword their way into it by trying to extend the bright red line the rule implies deserve every consequence they earn.

Nailing those who insist on trying to split hairs to achieve this illegal activity by trying to fudge the line, is the best way possible to send this entire idea of play calling to the scrap heap of garbage on where it belongs.

I just wish the rule itself was as crystal clear. I like the college version of the rule. It bans it outright with no extra verbage of "immediately before the snap."

I'd love to stop coaches from attempting this form of deception. However, I've got to convince my fellow officials that it is illegal before anything can be done on the field. And before I can do that, I feel like I should understand if this wording leaves a loophole for the play to be legal if enough time elapses before the snap.

Originally Posted by JRod37

The key there is that A88 is pretending to leave the field of play with other substitutes but does not in order to deceive the opponents. Unfortunately for the defense it does not happen "at or immediately before the snap."

Why do you feel A88 is not pretending to be a replaced player in order to deceive the opponents? What other reason is there for pretending to go off as a replaced player? What is the purpose of this play if not to confuse the defense in to not paying attention to A88?

Bigjohn, I don't know which side you fall on. Do you think there is a difference between running this 1 second before the snap versus 15 seconds before, or do you feel it is illegal in both cases?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Bullycon

I just wish the rule itself was as crystal clear. I like the college version of the rule. It bans it outright with no extra verbage of "immediately before the snap."

I'd love to stop coaches from attempting this form of deception. However, I've got to convince my fellow officials that it is illegal before anything can be done on the field. And before I can do that, I feel like I should understand if this wording leaves a loophole for the play to be legal if enough time elapses before the snap.

It sounds like, an irrational fear of violating some perceived loophole, is completely of your own making, Bullycon. The insistence on splitting hairs beyond any reasonable idea, is unfortunately, a self created dilemma that seems caused by some imaginary expectation of clairvoyance.

The rule is perfectly clear enough, as written, to suggest that this is an approach to STAY AWAY FROM, and any coach who tries to snuggle as close as possible to this line should readily understand he is playing with fire, and accept full responsibility for getting burned.

[whitehat]

Originally Posted by Bullycon

Chattanooga area. Big Titans and Predators fan, though.

Bullyon, cool! I lived TN a long time ago and actually started my officiating career there in the early 80's just out of college. Worked with Tom Ritter (R in SEC now) for a few years before moving out west. Still have family in SE TN.

[bigjohn]

I think it is illegal no matter when the pretended sub is done. The deception is still part of the play and should be stopped. Unless the officials feel it is very plain and clear that A88 is not being subbed for.

[Robert Goodman]

Probably Fed's qualifier is an attempt to stake off parts of the grey area where you might not be able to tell whether a procedure is a hide-out play or just a legitimate substitution procedure that may look fishy. They're saying that if the other team has enough time to see the formation, then your suspicion about the intentions of one team aside, it's legal.

It's the same with intentional grounding. They could've simply left it at that, but they added qualifiers about the ball's not being thrown in the direction of an eligible receiver. So even if you think it's an intentionally incomplete pass, you don't rule it so if there was some chance to complete it.

Of course qualifiers like this introduce new grey areas. Now you want to know how short a period before the snap qualifies it as a feigned substitution, or how far the pass has to be from an eligible receiver. But you understand the reason for them, right?

[bigjohn]

I do not agree with your take on IG at all!

Read the NFHS Football handbook.



From the 2009 -2010 NFHS Handbook

Intentionally lncomplete Forward Pass
A forward pass which is intentionally incomplete or thrown into an area not
occupied by an eligible offensive receiver, or to save loss of yardage or to conserve
time, is an illegal pass and a foul. The penalty is 5 yards and loss of down.
The only exception is if the ball is thrown forward to the ground immediately after
the player receives a direct hand-to-hand snap. This “spiking” may be done to
conserve time, but must be done during the first step backward and after he
receives a hand-to-hand snap from the snapper. The act is commonly known as
intentional grounding and occurs when a forward pass is purposely thrown to the
ground into an area not occupied by an eligible offensive receiver, or intentionally
thrown out of bounds to save loss of yardage, or to conserve time.
Officials must clearly understand the reasons for restrictions during this particular
type of illegal forward pass. Intentional grounding is a purposeful act during
which the passer deliberately throws a forward pass so that it becomes
incomplete for one or more reasons such as:
1. To prevent a loss of yardage when hopelessly trapped by the defense some
distance behind his line of scrimmage.
2. To avoid the risk of an interception.
When the defensive team forces a passer into a position from which he cannot
safely deliver the ball to an eligible teammate and he is unable to escape the
defensive confinement, the defensive team has accomplished its objective. If the
passer is permitted to intentionally incomplete a forward pass without penalty,
except for the immediate “spiking,” and thus avoid loss of yardage, the official by
his poor judgment or lack of it, has taken away an advantage which was fairly
earned.
When a passer appears to be hopelessly trapped, it is important that officials
anticipate the possibility of a foul. Guidelines which may assist the officials in
determining when a forward pass is intentionally incomplete include:
1. Is the passer making a bona fide attempt to complete a pass to an eligible
teammate?
2. Does the passer deliberately throw the ball to the ground or out of bounds
Part Five Officiating Page 61
or in a manner so that no one has an opportunity to catch it?
3. Are eligible offensive receivers in the area?
4. Is the passer attempting to save loss of yardage or to conserve time?
Good officials recognize that some passes are incomplete or do not arrive in the
immediate vicinity of the receiver because of a lack of skill on the part of the
passer, a broken pattern on the part of the intended receiver or because the
passer’s accuracy was affected by the actions of the defense. These officials can
also recognize an intentional and purposeful act and they can consistently and
judiciously administer the rules so that the team whose passer purposefully
incompletes a pass is penalized as required.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

It's the same with intentional grounding. They could've simply left it at that, but they added qualifiers about the ball's not being thrown in the direction of an eligible receiver. So even if you think it's an intentionally incomplete pass, you don't rule it so if there was some chance to complete it.

Can't agree with you Robert, I think you're reading way too much into your perception of "qualifiers" associated with Intentionally incompleting a forward pass.

The basic sequences is simply that the offense gets the unilateral choice to select what kind of play to run, the defense is given the challenge to counter whatever play the offense selects. Once the offense selects the play, their challenge becomes rejecting the defenses attempts to stop them.

When the defense is successful to the point the offense is totally unable to successfully complete their chosen mode of attack, they are expected to suffer the consequences of being outplayed by the defense, rather than to simply avoid the consequences by "dumping" the pass, which provides them with the unearned advantage of going back to the previous spot for the next play.

The reality is providing an unearned advantage to the offense always saddles the defense with an unearned DISadvantage, which is not our purpose. The responsibility to judge intent rests entirely with the Referee, who may have to "see into the soul of the passer", and the passer's eyes are often the "windows to the soul".

The only question is whether the passer attempted to complete the pass, or deliberately tried to throw it incomplete, for any of several reasons. Crew mates can assist the Referee in pointing out potential receivers who may have; cut the wrong way, slipped on their route or were otherwise legally deterred from their destination, but to allow a "dumping" is simply not fair to the defensive team who has risen to, and accomplished, their challenge.