What is the foul?

[bigjohn]

ART. 5 . . . An entering substitute shall be on his team’s side of the neutral zone when the ball is snapped or free kicked, A players must have been inside the 9 yard marks prior to the snap, as well.


This is what 3-7-5 should say so that is clear what the casebook play 3.7.5 is telling officials to call.

[bigjohn]

3.7.5 SITUATION: Substitute (a) A1, or (b) B1, noticing his team has only 10
players on the field, comes onto the field just as the ball is about to be snapped.




RULING: In (a), A1 must be on the field on A’s side of the neutral zone, inside the
9-yard marks, and not violate the shift or motion provisions. Furthermore, the act
of his coming onto the field must not deceive the defensive team.


In (b),

the substitution
is legal


as long as B1 is on the field on B’s side of the neutral zone prior
to the snap. (3-7-6; 7-2-1,6,7; 9-6-4)



If situation (b) is legal substitution, situation (a) must be illegal substitution unless A meets all requirements of being a LEGAL OFFENSIVE PLAYER!!!!!

2005 - NFHS Football Rules Changes - Football.Refs.Org


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

[bigjohn]

9-6-4d

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.

Then it should always be IP, it does not say the deception must be intentional.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

9-6-4d

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.

Then it should always be IP, it does not say the deception must be intentional.

In fact it does say that. No act can be "used to deceive" without intent to deceive.

[bigjohn]

show me that definition.

The defense was deceived! It doesn't say anyone intended to!



Then it is always be IP, 9-6-4 d doesn't say the deception must be intentional!

A has used a player, in a substitute situation, immediately before the snap and it deceived the defense.

From 3.7.5
Furthermore, the act
of his coming onto the field must not deceive the defensive team.

It doesn't say intent, it just says act!!!!!!!!!!



The fact that the QB threw him a quick pass is all the proof any officials should need to prove it was done to deceive!

[ajmc]

It seems John, that you have a problem getting past the simple fact that it's the judgment of the FIELD OFFICIAL, rather than those of either coaching staffs, in issues such as judging intent that are solely decisive. You can bellow or plead all you want about what you think those judgments should be, but your opinion is simply, and deliberately, not intended to be counted in the final analysis.

Your role, as a coach, is directed at other important aspects of the game and does not include direct participation in rule compliance decisions. Just as coaching is a never ending learning and adjusting process that is destined to ALWAYS fall short of perfection, so is officiating.

You seem to be yearning for some mystical illusional level of universal consistency, which is logically unreachable and would neither be good for the game nor achievable in any rational sense. Football, nor the rules designed to support the game, are designed or intended for "one size fits all" or "zero tolerance" application.

[ajmc]

It seems John, that you just can't get past the simple fact that it's the judgment of the OFFICIAL, in issues such as judging intent, that matter rather than those of either coaching staffs. You can bellow or plead all you want about what you think those judgments should be, but your opinion is simply not intended to be counted in the final analysis.

Your role, as a coach, is directed at other important aspects of the game and does not include direct participation in rule compliance decisions. Just as coaching is a never ending learning and adjusting process, so is officiating.

You seem to be yearning for some mystical illusional level of universal consistency, which is logically unreachable and would neither be good for the game nor achievable in any rational sense.

Football, nor the rules designed to support the game, are designed or intended for "one size fits all" or "zero tolerance" application.

[mikesears]

This was so good he said it twice!