Rule 9-6-4d

[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.