What is the foul?
 

A22 enters the game as A33 leaves, A22 never gets inside the 9yd mark just lines up at the bottom of the numbers. What is the call?

Illegal formation. Flag at the snap. 5 yards from the previous spot.

If the substitution is done in an attempt to illegaly deceive the defense, you could also have Illegal Participation. This could also be simply a "talk to" if I see that A22 is covered by a defender and I judge no advantage was gained though I'm not sure you'd like that one, John. :)

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)

The difference between being impartial and being an advocate is that although both can read the words of a rule, only one considers how best to apply them to equally serve the interest of both competitors, as well as the game itself.

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.

"Bureaucracy": When rules conflict with common sense, to blindly follow the letter of the rule rather than reason the objective. Good officials make lousy bureaucrats.

I can tell you that my crew will not flag this if the kid is properly covered.

We'll talk with the coach after and remind him to get the player inside the marks, but we're simply not going to flag the first one.

Normally this happens during a hurry-up where they get lined up before I can hit the RFP and the defense is ready, the offense is ready and everyone's waiting on the line to set and for the umpire to spot the ball and for me to blow the RFP. Why should they have to wait inside and then shift into their formation?

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.

"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."

So Rich, your crew doesn't have a case book?



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)

I'm telling you exactly how we handle it. If you don't like it, too bad.

OK, I can respect that. If no one covers A22, do you call illegal substitution?

Depends on the circumstances, really. But I've not had any teams run anything deceptive in this regard.

Come to think of it, we had this on a punt play a few years ago, and we flagged it for illegal formation (nobody covered the gunner, who wasn't inside, and the wing flagged it in case it was a designed fake -- the penalty was declined as it was a poor punt).

The rule has good intentions behind it, but the reality is that it takes time to reset after a play and when a team runs without a huddle (especially with no substitutions) there's no real reason to expect the team to meet the letter of this rule. I've not met a crew who does expect it, either.

I'm sure at least 10 officials will now post and say they do expect it, but it just proves that almost all officiating (despite national rules) is local.

If it is a foul, it'd either be illegal participation or illegal formation.

Illegal formation, 7-2-1 . . . After the ball is marked ready for play, each player of A who participated in the previous down and each substitute for A must have been, momentarily, between the 9-yard marks, before the snap.

PENALTY: Illegal formation (Arts. 1, 2, 3) – (S19);

It can't be illegal substitution. Which one of these did he violate?

3-7 Substitutions

ART. 1 . . . Between downs any number of eligible substitutes may replace players. Replaced players shall leave the field immediately.
ART. 2 . . . A player, replaced player or a substitute is required to leave the field at the side on which his team box is located and go directly to his team box.
ART. 3 . . . During the same dead-ball interval, no substitute shall become a player and then withdraw and no player shall withdraw and re-enter as a substitute unless a penalty is accepted, a dead-ball foul occurs, there is a charged time-out or the period ends.
ART. 4 . . . During a down a replaced player or substitute who attempts unsuccessfully to leave the field and who does not participate in or affect the play, constitutes an illegal substitution.
NOTE: Participation by a replaced player or substitute is illegal participation as in 9-6.
ART. 5 . . . An entering substitute shall be on his team’s side of the neutral zone when the ball is snapped or free kicked.
ART. 6 . . . During a down, a replaced player or substitute who enters the field, but does not participate, constitutes illegal substitution.

PENALTY: Illegal substitution (Arts. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) – (S22); (Arts. 1, 2, 3) dead-ball foul – (S7-22); (Arts. 4, 5) live-ball foul – 5 yards; (Art. 6) non-player foul – 5 yards (S22)

Possibly Illegal Participation:

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.

John, it's the same foul here as on the NFHS board - Illegal formation.

3.7.5 says that A players are illegal substitutes unless they are on their teams side of the ball, have been inside the 9's before the snap and not in violation of illegal motion or shift.

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.

If B is Legal A must be ILLEGAL unless all requirements are met!



It says for B there are no restrictions other than being on their side of the ball.

ART. 5 . . . An entering substitute shall be on his team’s side of the neutral zone

when the ball is snapped or free kicked.



The casebook is saying there is more to this rule than written! Rule 3-7-5 needs to be edited so officials will call it the way the casebook says to call it.

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

This was so good he said it twice! :D

The ACT of coming on the field immediately before the snap is deceptive to the defense though. It doesn't give them a fair chance to adjust.

Taking too long in the huddle(if you have been subbed for) is deemed deceptive by the NFHS isn't it?



This is just the opposite of too many men on the field .

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.

You just like to argue for it's own sake.

Take it back to the other board, you phony.

Al, I know we don't always see eye to eye but that was very well said.

always comes down to name calling for some folks! That shows very little class.

and no I am not looking for camelot, I just want it fixed. I have emailed my states rules guru and he has acknowledged my proposed change.

I thing Rule 3-7-5 should read as follows.

Rule 3-7
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 as well.

Don't you think that fixes this little problem?

The only thing needing fixed is you.

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!

You want the rules followed unless they pertain to you specifically.

I never cease to be amazed at how people who don't officiate seem to have no idea what "spirit and intent" mean. I am, however, glad to see it doesn't just happen in basketball.

John, you finally seem to be getting it. The rules are established as guidlines which are DELIBERATELY left up to the good judgment of field officials to apply as circumstances dictate for the betterment of the game. If all the rules were applied exactly as written on every play, everywhere, football would have ceased to be a worthwile endeavor 50 years ago.

Glad you brought up this ridiculous "uniform adornment" problem. Is there any conceivable reason why any coach, anywhere, cannot absolutely control what his players wear out onto the field during a game? It makes no sense to me why a competent coach would EVER allow a player to exit the locker room wearing any of the nonsense that's currently prohibited, much less actually permit a player to enter a game like that.

Then again, I try and understand how difficult it often is to monitor 40+ teenagers, who think they have all the answers and get to decide how things will be done, regardless of rules and try to be of whatever assistance I might be in dealing with all the stupid stuff, as inoccuously as possible, keeping things in relative perspective, rather than adding to the confusion.

In the final analysis, both officials and coaches, have different supervisory roles associated with a competitive, very physical, student exercise program and we both share the same objectives; that of seeing the contest conducted and concluded fairly, by appropriately prepared student athletes so that none of the participants get hurt or have a bad experience.

I think more accurately he wants to be a black & white, by the letter of rule sort of coach when the other guys are doing it. If his guys are doing it, I'd bet he's more of a "let 'em play" kinda guy. In other words, like just about every coach.
Advantage gained & how to apply it so the game can actually be played is a concept some people just cannot grasp. Of course that never stops them from advising those of us who can how to do it.

Actually, it was about your "need" to fix a rule that does not need fixing because it's already addressed elsewhere within the rules.

Ruffled feathers in every nest!
:)

Of course it is the coaches fault, when one team follows the rules and the other doesn't but it doesn't get called. Make perfect sense!

Let me ask this, how is it unfair to you if there's no advantage gained?

Glad? Schadenfreude?

I would have thought you'd feel disappointed. Or maybe just relieved. :(

I should have known you'd be the first person in this board to correctly use "Schadenfreude" in a sentence.

I didn't say a word about FAIR. I am talking about calling the rules as written in the rule book.
If one team is breaking the rule and it is not called then they are certainly gaining an advantage because they should be penalized and they are not.

The rules are written to prevent a team from gaining an unfair advantage; not so the other team can get some cheap advantage from a penalty enforcement.

Merely breaking a rule isn't providing an advantage in and of itself. The question is, "What advantage did they gain by breaking the rule?"

I'm not even a football guy, but I can tell that the officials on here are trying to tell you this particular rule is enforced when an advantage is gained and ignored when it is not. It's pretty common in sports. If you don't like it, sorry; but that's just how it is.

At least you admit you're a troll.

Maybe he's a spy?

What if 2-32-15 said this?

ART. 15 . . . A substitute is a team member who may replace a player or fill a
player vacancy. A substitute becomes a player when he enters the field and
communicates with a teammate or an official, enters the huddle, is positioned in
a LEGAL formation or participates in the play.

John, it's evident you either suffered a blow to the head or you need one.

I wonder if the rule change this year will apply to coaches as well.

The rules do not apply to him.

He's free to ridicule the officials working his games, he's free to question their integrity, he's free to stand on the sidelines and chirp at the guys as he sees fits.

He's done all that on the FED site, and when called on it, you guess it, he tell them his interpretation (which is always right) of the rule or regulation regarding coaches and their conduct.

I called him a phony in a different thread........... I was wrong ..........

He's a narcissistic phony.

Very mature, attack me because you don't like what I am saying.

I suspect that he attacked you because of how you said it and because you habitually and truculently refuse to learn anything, which is a reflection of your character.

But I shouldn't put words in other people's mouths.

I can tell you that my crew will not flag this if the kid is properly covered.

We'll talk with the coach after and remind him to get the player inside the marks, but we're simply not going to flag the first one.

Normally this happens during a hurry-up where they get lined up before I can hit the RFP and the defense is ready, the offense is ready and everyone's waiting on the line to set and for the umpire to spot the ball and for me to blow the RFP. Why should they have to wait inside and then shift into their formation?

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 how you are supposed to look at this situation?

He does the same crap periodically on the NFHS basketball forum. He has no interest whatsoever in officiating or the rules of any particular sport. He is...pure and simple....your basic troll. One of the better and more effective trolls, for sure, but still a troll.

The best way to deal with the "bigjohns" of the world is to absolutely never debate them about anything related to the rules. They aren't really interested in those anyway; just stirring things up. Just tell 'em to piss off back to where they come from. That's the mature way to handle people like him.:)

It seems to me that John is not happy because there is a rule and it is not being followed to the letter. He wants (if I understand the content of the thread correctly) simply to have an ironclad writing of the rule so that everyone is on the same level when it comes to evaluating the situation.

My answer to that for John is that holding is clearly defined in the rulebook, but there are a huge amount of times that it happens on the field (and is even seen by the officials) and doesn't get called.
The philosophy is to only call it if there is a 'material restriction' (or something to that effect). If I see one and don't flag it, I try to talk to the player or coach when appropriate to let them know that it wasn't called in this instance, but might be in the future, so they should try to play within the letter of the rule.

I think we see a similar philosophy here about the 9 yards and substitutes.

If you guys saw the number of emails and IMs I get from officials saying how much they want me to keep up my banter on these websites you would know that I am the voice of many people who think the same way I do.

It is not the same as holding or any other common foul as to when to call it or not call it. It rarely happens and should be called to stop any coaches from being able to take advantage of the fact that it goes uncalled.

If someone leaves the field and comes back on he is an illegal substitute, if he comes on after the snap, IP and if he comes on one second before the snap and gets set and he is the 11th man he is subbing for someone and never got in a LEGAL offensive formation, he should be considered an illegal substitute, if 2-32-15 was written as I say you would all agree.
Or 3-7-5 was amended to include, "A players must have been inside the 9s"

The silent majority lives! Ha!

Voice of the phonies !!!


LMAO !!!!

So JR, you look at the world from a dog's point of view?


Treat life's little problems like your dog would ... If you can't eat it or shag it, ... P i s s on it and walk away!!!

Unionize 'em, johnboy. You can be the first president of the UTA- the United Trolls of America.

Go bother the soccer officials for a while. It's their turn.

Shoo, shoo......

That's not a bad philosophy actually when it comes to clowns like you, johnboy.

Have you hit the wrestling officials yet today? When is it the volleyball officials' turn?

Please keep us advised of your itinerary.

;)

I had to look that one up. Thanks for the new word.

The downtrodden and servile officials of the world want you representing them???? They think the same way you do???? You are their voice????? Good Lord John. You need your head examined.

Bigjohn - I enjoy, as I'm sure many of the others, opinions from the coaching side of the game. I would guess that some of the most rude responses you receive are from some of the most timid officials out there (or they could be from somebody's grandmother!). Hope you have a successful season and keep us informed as to all the good/bad/maybe calls made in your game.


I get this kind of message often.

Was that during your temper tantrum on the NFHS forum when you deleted your posts and threatened to leave?

I also don't see anything in that message asking you to spread inane comments about the rules across the four corners of the internet but I'm sure you have a quiver full of those messages as well.

.....and messages from your mom don't count. :D

4 out of 5 dentists e-mail him for his toothpaste recommendations as well.

I have to say, I really like the kindlier and gentlier Jurassic.

Seriously? An email that remains anonymous accuses your detractors of being timid? You should know the two words I'm thinking right now, but you probably don't.

"Bull Schitt!"

there was a name on it, I removed it, there were many.

Yup, and you're proud ot it too, ain't ya, trollboy?

Hit the lacrosse boards yet today? Rugger?

Sigh....so many websites to troll, so few hours. Ever think of hiring an assistant troll? You know, like a troll de campe?

You have 'em all saved too, don't you?

Did you print them out and spiral bind them together also?

Perhaps you keep them by your bedside so you can read them when you can't sleep at night, taking you to that magical land of candy gum drops that grow on trees, streams of fresh brewed beer flow freely and there are even officials there that actually enjoy reading your spirited and informed thoughts about the rules.

Yes John, there is such a place, where officials always call butt blocking and never tell the coach "three in the box". These kindly officials also never refuse to speak with you because you're just an assistant. Their calls are always perfect and nary an adornment is missed. It is a perfect land and you, sir, have the vehicle to get us there.

Oh, I'm well acquainted with bigjohn from the various NFHS forums, Snaqs. He's a serial troll. It's his mission in life. But ya gotta admit, he is one of the better ones. Look at how got everybody here going..and forgetting all about actual football officiating at the same time.

Did I write that? I'm too lazy to look it up, but it sounds like what I'd say and how I'd say it.

If I didn't write it, it's one helluva a smart guy who did.

And I guarantee you this: I'm certainly not timid. If you asked me about this rule and even if you wasted a timeout for a conference, I would tell you exactly what I (or some intelligent, probably quite dashing official) wrote in the post you quoted. What will you do about it? The NFHS and my state do not accept protests and I feel I have the spirit and intent of the rule on my side.

Hey I'm just bored at work.

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.