I don't even care about football at the moment. It's still basketball season.

Yeah, back to pressing matters like Black Pants!
:)

Maybe we can discuss our favorite USC flags against coaches. :rolleyes:

Rich I agree 100% with this part of your quoted post!

It's a rule that was written to combat deceptive substitutions and shifts and I would rather work with the intent of the rule rather than the strict letter of it, regardless of how many case plays someone posts.

That is the point I have been trying to make all along. 7-2-2 does not address this and most officials will not call it deceptive.

That is why I reposted it. I think that anytime a sub comes in and doesn't get inside the 9s it should be ILLEGAL SUBSTITUTION.

My two possible rules additions could fix that.
Either add the words "A must get inside the nine yard marks as well" to 3-7-5 or add the word "Legal" to 2-32-15

Well it should technically be a foul for illegal formation every time it happens. Call it whatever you want...call it "Violating the ethical principles of the 9 yard marks, the natural order according to God and it's effect on humanity" if you want to. The point is, if there is no advantage gained, it's not going to be called. Same with a simple hold away from the point of attack. Same with...gasp...an illegal substitution when a replaced player is trying to get off the field and he is only a couple of steps from the sideline when the ball is snapped. Convoluting the rule and trying to bend it to make it fit your twisted notion of illegal substitution doesn't mean it will magically be called all the time. You're still waiting with bated breath for a "consistent" application of butt blocking.

Why do you care so much? It's like you just discovered a new "issue" with the rules and much like a child with a shiny new trinket, you have to show everybody what you found.

So are all of these messages spiral bound, comb bound or loose leaf in a three ring binder? Maybe you had them put in an eBook for your Kindle?

Explain how if the defense recognizes the player "out there" and covers him prior to the snap it is somehow "deceptive".
Your rule suggestion merely makes an illegal formation foul into an illegal substitution foul, both of which are live ball 5yd penalties. Just what does your brilliant idea dramatically change?

Should they really let you guys wear Black Pants? Why, so you will look like the NFL guys?

Spiral bound. I knew it.

because if A22 participate and he is ruled an IS then it is IP a 15 yard penlaty. If it is IF then it can only be a 5 yard penalty. Anytime there is possible hideout type play being run it should be 15! That is my logic, Mike and thank you for the actual rules discussion.

Well maybe comb bound. You're a tough read.

I am a computer guy Welped! They are stored on a word doc on my flash drive!

Actually they are still on the NFHS server in my private message inbox!
:)

You should consider reading the enforcement penalty for your rule 3-7-5. It is not a 15 yd penalty. It is a 5 yd, live ball illegal substitution penalty. To achieve the 15 yd status, the covering official would have to determine the practice was deceptive (see 9-6-4d) which simply is not going to happen if the defense covers the player.
Why no answer regarding the request for explanation on how it is deceptive if the defense covers him?

editted to add : I too am bored at work, so no feeling like the Lone Ranger there, Welpe. BTW, sick of Texas yet?

No, I understand that but if 3-7-5 makes A22 an illegal substitute and then he participates in the play it is IP, NO?

15 yard penalty!

That has been my claim the entire time.


ART. 3 . . . No replaced player, substitute, coach, trainer or other attendant
shall hinder an opponent, touch the ball, influence the play or otherwise participate.

Not necessarily. That's why the NFHS saw fit to create 3 seperate rules for the situation, 3-7-5, 7-2-1 and 9-6-4d. Clearly they do not want something like failing to come within the 9 yd marks to rise to the level of the very onerous 15 yd penalty.
And still no explanation of how the covered player is deceptive.
And your article 3 quote deals with players who are not supposed to be on the field, not the question at hand. What we are discussing is the process of illegally substituting a player. That's why the foul is called an illegal substitution rather than illegal substitute. One is a process, the other is a person.

Just because someone on defense is standing over there doesn't mean he is ready for a player to step in off the bench. Now in my OP, if the sub gets to the numbers and gets set and the defender is covering him I can see the latitude in not calling it especially if it is a run play and the sub isn't even involved in the play. If the ball is thrown to that receiver on a quick pass and the defender is not prepared for the play you have to say A gained an advantage by breaking the rule. If the sub just gets one step on the field and then catches a quick spot pass it is deception by design.