Time Out before Illegal Substitution

[cmathews]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I've just been working on illegal substitution, because we messed one up last Friday.

FED has both live-ball and dead-ball IS. For a dead-ball IS (replaced player fails to leave within 3 seconds), you would have to determine whether the coach requested the TO before the foul occurred. Penalize only if the TO request came after the foul, and ask the coach if he still wants the TO.

For a live-ball IS (replaced player is running off the field but does not make it prior to the snap), this is not a foul until the snap. Provided the coach requests a TO prior to the snap, it is not a foul. Shouldn't have to wave off a flag because there shouldn't be one.

See Case Book, 3.7 COMMENT

Of course he requested a TO before the foul occurred

[Rich]

If I can't get the players counted and the flag on the ground before the TO request, I'll grant the TO without a penalty.

[MRH]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

If I can't get the players counted and the flag on the ground before the TO request, I'll grant the TO without a penalty.

I agree. I don't see where an advantage has been gained.

[MD Longhorn]

I have to admit I'm supremely surprised at the number of officials blowing off this foul. There are rules that we are supposed to weigh advantage / disadvantage (holding away from the play, for example). This is not one of them. Ignoring this foul, to me, is like ignoring a false start on your side of the line because the play went the other way.

Regardless of ruleset, IS happens WHEN IT HAPPENS. If you're already recounting the 12 ... it happened. This is not an advantage/disadvantage type of foul. They broke the rule when the replaced player didn't leave (FED) or they broke the huddle (NCAA). A time out after the fact cannot negate what has already happened.

I'm completely amazed at the number of you (most of whom I know (from here) and respect (also from here)) ignoring this foul over a subsequent time out. This seems to me to be VERY contrary to the spirit of the rule.

To those ignoring this foul ... if the sub comes in, doesn't leave, you count... you start to recount (5 seconds ... 6 seconds) and THEN a player leaves the huddle --- do you ignore it then? What if he leaves the huddle and THEN the coach calls a time out? Too much inconsistency in ignoring this, to me. And no, I'm not exactly known as an OOO.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I have to admit I'm supremely surprised at the number of officials blowing off this foul. There are rules that we are supposed to weigh advantage / disadvantage (holding away from the play, for example). This is not one of them. Ignoring this foul, to me, is like ignoring a false start on your side of the line because the play went the other way.

Regardless of ruleset, IS happens WHEN IT HAPPENS. If you're already recounting the 12 ... it happened. This is not an advantage/disadvantage type of foul. They broke the rule when the replaced player didn't leave (FED) or they broke the huddle (NCAA). A time out after the fact cannot negate what has already happened.

I'm completely amazed at the number of you (most of whom I know (from here) and respect (also from here)) ignoring this foul over a subsequent time out. This seems to me to be VERY contrary to the spirit of the rule.

To those ignoring this foul ... if the sub comes in, doesn't leave, you count... you start to recount (5 seconds ... 6 seconds) and THEN a player leaves the huddle --- do you ignore it then? What if he leaves the huddle and THEN the coach calls a time out? Too much inconsistency in ignoring this, to me. And no, I'm not exactly known as an OOO.

Delaying a substitution or attempting to play with 12 players is an advantage for the team doing it so this is most definitely an advantage/disadvantage foul. If I'm the d-coordinator, I may call my play based on what personnel you have and if you have an extra player, I'm at a disadvantage.

The difference in your last situation is that you caught the issue before the time out because you recognized the foul quickly. You have no idea if they will call time out to correct the situation before the snap. If they are able to get the time out before anyone throws a flag, the advantage they had with the extra player goes away. They will get their 11 players corrected and the defense will be able to adjust.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

Delaying a substitution or attempting to play with 12 players is an advantage for the team doing it so this is most definitely an advantage/disadvantage foul. If I'm the d-coordinator, I may call my play based on what personnel you have and if you have an extra player, I'm at a disadvantage.

I believe you missed my point entirely. All fouls are in the book because allowing them creates some sort of unwanted advantage. of COURSE playing with 12 is an advantage, or even having 12 out there.

My point, however, was this is not a foul where the referee should think - did the act create a disadvantage? And if not, ignore the foul (which some above have said, nearly word for word.). This foul is a foul when it happens.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I believe you missed my point entirely. All fouls are in the book because allowing them creates some sort of unwanted advantage. of COURSE playing with 12 is an advantage, or even having 12 out there.

My point, however, was this is not a foul where the referee should think - did the act create a disadvantage? And if not, ignore the foul (which some above have said, nearly word for word.). This foul is a foul when it happens.

Mike, with all due respect, you are entitled to YOUR judgment, just as others who may assess circumstances somewhat differently. "One size" has never and will will never fit all. The single most important quality an official brings to the table is solid judgment, which includes not only determining whether some action violates the language of a rule, but whether that action violates the intent of that rule to the extent of justifying the proscribed penalty.

Advantage/Disadvantage is a serious concept that underscores the overall management of a game and the application of the rules as applied to that game. Our responsibilities go far beyond simply knowing the rules and being able to recognize violations. We are given, "authority to rule promptly, and in the spirit of good sportmanship, on any situation not specifically covered in the rule" (NF:1-1-6) as well as, "authority to make decisions for infractions of the rule."(NF: 1-1-9). These are extremely broad and open ended descriptions deliberately and for good reason.

In the majority of situations, the judgments are clear and instantaneous, however there is an overarching standard of "does whatever was done gain, or cause, an unfair advantage". If not, does the act deserve the penalty, or some lesser admonition or caution, like a "talking to". These are decisions made EVERY game at EVERY level and the consistency of those decisions are limited to THAT game only. (We should arrive at judgments consistently, but the actual judgments made are based on the game being played).

Sometimes precision enforcement is the appropriate consideration, other times sound judgment is the key factor, and no two games are exactly alike.

[parepat]

I have no foul if I have not flagged it.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: mbcrowder...i do agree that you're technically correct. However, if faced with that situation, I would grant the TO and leave the flag in my pocket. The possibility of an advantage for the offending team is pretty much gone once they call the TO. And on top of that, they've disadvantaged themselves by having to call a worthless timeout-due-to-stupidity. Just MHO.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Bob M.

REPLY: mbcrowder...i do agree that you're technically correct. However, if faced with that situation, I would grant the TO and leave the flag in my pocket. The possibility of an advantage for the offending team is pretty much gone once they call the TO. And on top of that, they've disadvantaged themselves by having to call a worthless timeout-due-to-stupidity. Just MHO.

I can live with that, Bob. However, if you have laundry on the ground, you're not going to wave it off and grant the TO, are you?

[MD Longhorn]

This thread makes me sad.