There is no problem but carry on carrying on.

Probably had a few extra commas he needed to use.

Only if you wish to make the Illegal Formation foul into a Substitution foul, which is unnecessary and/or redundant.
Your problem seems to be an inability to have to read & recall several different sections of the rule book for a series of acts that are very similar in order to come up with the correct foul. That's not a problem with the rule book.
In this situation:

1) if he's not on his side when the ball goes live, it's illegal substitution. 3-7-5
2) if he's on his side but never gets inside the 9 yd marks, it's illegal formation. 7-2-1
3) if in the opinion of the covering official the late substitution is made in order to deceive the defense, it's illegal participation 9-6-4d
4) there's also the possibility of an illegal shift call if he never comes set. 7-2-6

for 2) or 3) the official is well within his perogative to "pass" on the call if he feels no advantage has been gained which usually comes from the "offending" player getting covered by the defense prior to the snap despite his illegal act.

+1

That should be that.

optimists are so cute

The 9 yard marks were added to aid officials in calling Substitution infractions, so why wouldn't the foul be illegal substitution. I think it is fine if players on the field never get inside the 9s to call illegal formation, although most officials refuse to!

The case play 3.7.5 goes with Rule 3-7-5 which states what a player must do to be a legal substitute, in the case of A there are restrictions that are not the same for B. If the rule were changed as I propose it would reflect this.
Why is that such a bad thing for all of you?

Case 7.2.1.A: Following a second down play, A89 comes onto the field as as substitute for A93 but a89 stops 5 yards from the sideline as his team is ready to snap the ball. Following the snap, A89 goes down field and catches A1's legal forward pass for a first down. RULING: This is an ILLEGAL FORMATION marked off from the previous spot (if accepted). Depending on the situation, this could also be illegal participation. (9-6-4d)

Though I agree with your assertion, you might have misapplied it to me.

Were I an optimist, I would have posted "That's that." ;)

The nine yard marks were added to aid officials in determining if all A players were within 15 yards of the ball at some point between the RFP and the snap.

Yeah, I already posted that piece of info!


Two changes were approved by the committee to help officials better determine the 11 legal offensive players in the game. The first change will require a mark 12 inches in length, 4 inches in width and 9 yards from each sideline to be located on each 10-yard line. The other change will require all offensive players to be, momentarily, between the 9-yard marks after the ready for play and prior to the snap, and adhere to all other pre-snap requirements. The 9-yard markings are not required on fields that are visibly numbered.

"The Football Rules Committee has considered various issues over the past few years to address substitutions and the balance between offense and defense," said Brad Cashman, executive director of the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association and chairman of the NFHS Football Rules Committee. "Teams were reportedly returning to previous practices of hiding players near the sideline, as well as attempting to deceive the opponents with various substitution abnormalities.

"The previous rule requiring each offensive player to be within 15 yards of the ball was inconsistently applied, as it contained no easily verifiable fixed reference point for officials to administer."

In addition to the substitution rule mentioned above, several other substitution and illegal participation rules were revised by the committee to clarify omissions and eliminate conflicts within the rules

Oh, I get it now. You're hung up on what some news release says about the rule ("In addition to the substitution rule mentioned above") and because of that it MUST be a substitution foul vs actually reading what matters. You know something like the rule book.

and the casebook and why a rule is what it is not just the black and white hard fast rules. If all officials did that IF would be called every time a receiver did not get inside the 9s. Instead the officials just decide when it is a foul based on personal beliefs. Not what the NFHS wants called. IF the rule book was followed, any time a player participated with an illegal adornment, there would be a flag. Yeah, it is all about the rules!

original!