Time Out before Illegal Substitution

[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.

[MD Longhorn]

I'm aware that advantage/disadvantage is a serious concept. I fail to see how it applies to any (ANY!) pre-snap fouls. And I can think of no other foul where a coach calling timeout between the time of the foul and the hankie hitting the ground would nullify the penalty. The speed of our thinking, reacting should never come into play... yet several here have said that they would let it.

Disappointing, really.

[cmathews]

a delay of game penalty is another one that can be "bought" by a time out in my opinion....failure to properly wear equipment (ie Wide out has left his mouthpiece out....official and coach see it at the same time...snap is imminent official reaches for flag...coach calls time out)