Trick play, middle school. Your take...
 

Corpus Christi

the snap was continous, and in a backward direction... which is one of the arguements against the wrong ball trick play.

Can't tell for sure but I'd bet there was verbiage that led the defense to believe the snap was not imminent. Probably should have been shut down with a USC foul.

snap infraction
 

According to the rules, it has to be a quick and continuous motion of the ball going backwards. That "snap" didn't meet any of those requirements.

The guy held up the ball and gave it to the runner. That's not backwards. Holding the ball for someone to grab it doesn't seem quick to me either.

I should note that the rule I'm referring to is under NFHS rules. Now the game happened in Texas. Don't they use NCAA rules there? I was told they did. If so, I don't know the exact rule on snaps in NCAA.

I saw this posted online, and I figured it would be here for discussion.

You can also see his coach yelling about the wrong ball and holding his hand up trying to get officials attention.

How many times are we (officials) going to miss this one?

No, the snap is not legal. It must be backwards ADN leave the snapper's hand IMMEDIATELY.

Further, there is verbiage designed to make the defense think there's a problem and that the ball won't be snapped.

This play is illegal.

I don't think that's the serious argument. I don't see anyone agitating for a Canadian style rule on snapping the ball because of such plays. This is why the head coach of the Pee Wee team I assist with practices defensive line going on any movement of the ball or the snapper's ball hand.

I'd just like to know what was said between the snapper and quarterback. That would determine whether it was an illegal play, and I think the current rule draws the line in the right place.

On those criteria, NCAA's exactly the same. It's an old rule that predates the formation of the Federation.

The only criterion I think wasn't satisfied was the movement of the ball being quick. It was continuous (didn't stop & resume), backward, and left the snapper's hand without a pause in motion. The fact that the ball also moved upward doesn't mean it wasn't moving backward; follow its arc. The only problem seems to have been its lack of speed. and of course that's a matter of judgment. The fact that he could've moved the ball faster to get it to the same place to me would be the decisive factor in the snap's being illegal, because it looks like its slowness was intentional and unnecessary.

If you were to look at a conventional C-QB exchange, you'd probably call that holding the ball up for someone to grab too. The impetus for the release of the ball doesn't have to come from the snapper's hand(s). Even in rugby, when a player takes the ball from a tackled player who's holding it up, that's considered a release by the tackled player.

In the power wing -- which I just had a brief exchange with another coach on online -- one of the snaps is around the waist like that to a motioning back who takes the ball as it's held out.

Since this game began, and as long as it will be played, there will be coaches trying to fiure out ways to do someting new and suprising. That's fine and is a big prt of what makes this game special.

However, it's rarely a good thing to surprise the game officals with what someone might "think" is a totally new interpretation and test it during live play. A smart coach, with a new, great idea, will review it thoroughly with the game officials prior to the game, it's going to be tested in, to make sure he (they) agree it's permissable.

I suspect a large majority of officials would shut this new and innovative idea down immdiately as a snap infraction. It may catch a few officials by surpise, but I wouldn't count on playslike this standing.

In Texas (NCAA) this should have been shut down as an illegal snap. There's a pretty good chance there was some verbiage by the coach and QB that would have turned this into an unsportsmanlike foul had the snap been legal. Since the snap didn't leave the snappers hands immediately this is a dead ball foul.

Case book says ACTIONS or verbiage designed to confuse the defense into thinking there is a problem and the snap is not immenent is illegal.

To me, the act of the QB throwing his arms up, acting like there is a problem or confusion, would qualify, therefore I'm shutting this down and we'll have a UC on the coach.

Not to mention the legality of the "snap".

There's no requirement that it leave the snapper's hand immediately (or you are unclear as to what you mean by that).

Exactly.

NFHS uses the verbiage "immediately leave the hands of the snapper."

NCAA requires the snap to be quick and continuous motions with the ball "actually leaving the hand or hands in this motion."

So the question under NCAA rules is: did the motion stop before the ball left the hand of the snapper?

do they only have 6 on the los? Would you count the WR on the right (top) on the line? he's nearly 2 yards behind the los.

This play was shown ad nauseam on SportsCenter tonight (Monday) as well as on the MNF pre-game show.

Nobody pointed out that it's illegal. :(

While hypothetical.......
 

As I was watching this "ad nauseum", I constantly thought, what would happen if a LB or safety absolutely cleaned this kids clock. I mean, the kid is so defenseless (good acting), but, how would mom and dad, coach, teammates, etc, react if this kid gets hammered? Legally. Not too funny then..... hypothetical of course.

I expect you'll have a chance to find out during your first peewee game next year, after the coaches have had a year to figure out how to run it and how to defend it. All without much thought to whether it's legal. :(

YouTube - Trick Play in football gone bad

Yeah, makes Coach look pretty stupid if it doesn't work!

Looks like the officials actually change the ball after the down.

Actually, there's an excellent chance of verbiage making this illegal. Saw the interview on CNN with the coach. The play involves drawing a defensive encroachment, followed by the coach shouting in that the officials did not mark off the penalty correctly and the QB should just do it and the QB responding.
Sorry coach, you've just committed an unsportsmanlike act. Try again.

An example of why it's so important to ask, what seems like such a basic question, "Any unusual plays you're thinkg of using today, Coach". Of course there's really no defense against a coach who chooses not to answer, but hopefully some who might be considering this type play will bring it up providing you with the opportunity to explain why it will be illegal, and help avoid the coach from embarrassing himself.

The weird stuff is coming out of the woodwork this week. Receiver does handsprings while in motion

Any thoughts on the ejection?

I don't know why the player was ejected. The article mentioned a tinted visor while one of the comments referened the player saying something to the official.

As for the coach, watching the video it appears as if about the :40 mark one of the assistant coaches leans in and yells something at the wing official. The wing official then throws his flag and points at the assistant coach who is walking away. So the coach ejection may have been for two USC's on his sideline. Just guessing. But I certainly see the wing pointing at an assistant coach after his flag.

If you look over on Deadspin, it's reported that the coach brought this up before the game, was told that it would get flagged, and then decided to run it anyway.

So they had it coming. QED.

If what the coach says is true, it's hard to eject a kid for excessive celebration after numerous dead/live ball penalties on a PAT. If we had told a coach that you could not run the play because it was illegal and he did it anyway, then you just penalize him the 15 USC penalty and move on. Maybe the missing aspect is that it was his second USC and he was shown the door for that.

Maybe this paragraph supports the theory:
Precisely why the pair was given the boot is uncertain. GoBlueRidge.net reported that the two were kicked out because of the play itself, but the penalty was not technically due an ejection, so other possibilities are available. One of those was provided to RivalsHigh senior analyst Dallas Jackson, who had a source report that Haas was ejected because of an earlier flag for a tinted visor and Pruitt was banned because of an additional unsportsmanlike penalty assessed for an inappropriate comment from a Watauga assistant coach.

You're entitled to that opinion; however, your opinions on this matter are irrelevant.

I've seen 2 15+ yard 2 point conversions in games I've worked in 2010 alone, but I agree, it's not a high-percentage play. Perhaps that should've been taken into account by your players and/or coaches before committing whatever penalty caused you to be backed up 15 yards for the try?

This is why my white-hat always asks coaches in our pregame conference: "is there anything that you might do tonight, trick plays, unusual formations, etc, that we need to know about?"

Ummm... what did you possibly hope to accomplish by running the play? If you knew the play was illegal (presumably because the officials told you so)... you've just basically admitted that your best-case scenario is a repeat of the try from the 33-yard line.

Watch the video coach. The White-hat throws the first USC flag for the handspringing player (probably actually calling it on the you for calling the play in the first place). Then a minute later, the wing official throws an USC flag on one of your coaches. Bam, two USC flags, enjoy the parking lot.

If you deliberately run a play that the officials have EXPLICITLY TOLD YOU IS ILLEGAL, you pretty much have to expect that the officials won't take kindly to you basically daring them to flag you for it.

I have no problems with ejecting the coach for this.

What about the illegal formation? Only 6 on the LOS. The wing and top WR are not on the LOS. The L touches the bill of his hat for 3 on the LOS on his side. LJ gives no signal.

'

Under NFHS rules, the ball must leave the snapper's hand immediately.

This play happened in NC.

Under the NCHSAA Ejection Policy, "any delayed, excessive or prolonged act by which a player attempts to focus attention upon himself," (9-5-1c) is considered taunting/baiting and results in an ejection. That includes waving the ball at a defender on a TD run or diving into the end zone. The ejection carries a one game suspension.

The coach was also assessed a USC foul because he was told prior to the game that the play was illegal and chose to run it anyway. As he had already been flagged for a player wearing a tinted visor, he was ejected for two USC fouls.

Also, the coach told a friend of mine that runs a HS sports website that he was misquoted. He said had he known the player would have been ejected, he would not have run the play.

This play happened in NC.

Under the NCHSAA Ejection Policy, "any delayed, excessive or prolonged act by which a player attempts to focus attention upon himself," (9-5-1c) is considered taunting/baiting and results in an ejection. That includes waving the ball at a defender on a TD run or diving into the end zone. The ejection carries a one game suspension.

The coach was also assessed a USC foul because he was told prior to the game that the play was illegal and chose to run it anyway. As he had already been flagged for a player wearing a tinted visor, he was ejected for two USC fouls.

Also, the coach told a friend of mine that runs a HS sports website that he was misquoted. He said had he known the player would have been ejected, he would not have run the play.

Either way, it's pretty stupid to run the play if you know it's going to draw a flag.

What amazes me is the people that will still argue with me when I tell them

#1 - the definition of a legal snap. I think that the legality of the snap can be argued in this play.
#2 - To me what can't be argued is the case book scenario:
But because is it on the news and they say it is legal, then it HAS to be legal

I listened very closely to the various ESPN incarnations of this video, and the closest I heard to a claim of legality was an ex-player asking, "That can't be legal, can it?"

The answer was: "the refs allowed it!" :(

Yes, the refs allowed it. But now this play is going to be a topic of conversation for every association meeting and every rules interpreter/clinician pretty much everywhere.

So it'll be much harder for any team to get away with next time.

Since the refs didn't flag it, why would news stations, websites, etc think the play is illegal? If I didn't hang out on this board, I wouldn't have known. Blame your brothers in stripes, NOT those showing the video.

The issue isn't so much the NBC, CBS, and ABCs screwing it up (although they are supposed to be reporters too), it's ESPN screwing it up. ESPN is supposed to have a bunch of football journalists on staff. A journalist who is doing his job right would know enough about football to at the very least think "something's not right about this" and then call one of the 10 or so football referees his developed a relationship with to do a little research. A real journalist would already know the rule cold and wouldn't need the research.

It's just another sorry statement on the poor quality of sports journalism. All they require of them is the ability to look at a screen and go "Wow! Look at that!"

Edit: This of course doesn't excuse the referee crew for kicking it.

Disagree. It's obviously illegal, and not an interesting or challenging play to discuss.

I don't know. There's going to be at least one association that's going to focus on it. (I hope it's the one these guys belong to.) At the very least, I would guess a lot of association do a Don't-be-these-guys kind of thing.

We have plenty of guys in our association who either never attend meetings or do attend but have no clue this is illegal. There other associations in our state that never have formal meetings. Youth games aren't always officiated by licensed officials. The fact this particular play has received so much publicity and most people now think it is perfectly legal, I think having a brief discussion at an association meeting would be a good idea. There wouldn't be a debate unless one of the guys wants to be "that guy". I'm sure there will be some at every association meeting though that didn't realize plays like these were fouls.

It actually kinda does in NCAA too, it just does not use the word "immediately". What it does say is it must move from the ground in a quick and continous motion of the hand, the ball actually leaving the hand in this motion.
So, I'd like TA to explain exactly how you have a quick and continuous motion and the ball leaving the hand in that motion unless it fairly immediately leaves the hand. If he keeps the ball in his hand, it's not a quick and continous motion now is it? Sounds like it needs to leave the hands pretty immediately.

It's not just that. You have to do some research to find out the rules a particular youth game is played by. I'm still learning some of the rules we have to go by when we're up by 18+ points!

But it did leave his hands as "immediately" as it probably would have had he snapped it between his legs. That wasn't the failing. Rather, it's that the motion wasn't quick.

So let's take that off the table and imagine a case that would be controversial. No relevant verbal signals prior, and then:

QB to C: "Doofus, never mind the signal, just hand me the ball."

C to QB: "Like this?"

Snapper hands ball to QB as shown on video, but faster.

QB to C: "Yeah, just like that. Now watch as I walk it upfield."

QB walks ball to end zone.

Treat it as Fed rules. You let it go or not? It doesn't shout out, "Snap is not imminent." However, it works only by team B's not considering the ball to have been snapped.

I disagree that a sports journalist is expected to know all the rules, even in a sport as popular as football. Even if a commentator saw the clip and thought "something's not right", the fact no one on the field (who should be up to date on ALL rules) threw a flag would probably be enough for him to think "it must be legal".

Let's even use someone who played/coached football, and presumably knows the rules better than your "average" sports journalist. They see the play and know it was illegal when/where they played, but they don't know what rule set is being used or even if a rule might have changed since they played. They see no yellow flags following the play so "it must be legal".

Believe me, I get that commentators are clueless and often give our wrong information (particularly when you're talking about details about an issue). But without a) yellow flags on the field or b) a coach or someone protesting the illegality of the play, I don't see anything to "raise flags" (pun intended) in anyone's mind.

This kind of lack of expectation is why they get away with it. Journalists are lazy because we don't demand any better from them. If your livelihood depends on writing stories about a game, the least you should do is learn the rules of the game. After all, it's really not a hard thing to do.

But for some reason, we just accept that they're lazy.

Don't forget announcers and writers do not hesitate to say officials got a play wrong in other instances where they don't throw flags. They rarely assume that just because a flag isn't thrown it must be legal.

I would never expect a journalist to know the rule on a goofy play like this. There should be some kind of trigger in their head though to check with someone who does know. Unfortunately he could have called his buddy who was the R in the game and still gotten the wrong information.

I'm sorry, I should have specified. You are correct about announcers calling out officials when there's no flag, but I think it's safe to say that's for more "well known" (I use that term loosely:D) rules.

I think this is one of those where even if someone thought "it looked wrong", the "crowd's" reaction convinced him HE was wrong. Does that make sense?

You are required to be WIAA/NFHS licensed here in WI for the youth league we work. As RG points out, in the AAYFL here in WI, if a team is down by 17 or more points, and scores...they have the option of having the team with the lead kick-off to them again. My crew worked the WI League Championship last weekend...score was 22-3 at half. Team that won toss and chose to receive to start the game, got it again on the second half KO, because of the point differential...kind of a bogus rule during a game of that nature IMO....but rules are rules. 9 point game by the end.

Under Fed rules, what position is the player receiving the snap in? Lineman, back, or neither? By NCAA rules: One player may be between his scrimmage line and the backs if in a position to receive a hand-to-hand snap from between the snapper’s legs. When in such position, that player may receive the snap himself or it may go directly to any player legally a back [S19].

The problem with this play for NCAA is that the ball did not go between the snappers legs.

The rule in NFHS is identical. I suppose rules lawyers could argue the point of whether the QB actually has to receive the snap there or can just start there and then move his hands in order to receive some other sort of snap such as up by the snapper's shoulder area since the rule is not specific enough for this ridiculous situation.

I know that is what I have told at least two dozen people since this play was seen. I tell them all it was illegal and should have been blown dead. I have told two junior high coaches and both of them said they had thought about trying to run this play next year. Every year one crew lets a play like this stand and all of us have to break the bad news to the 100 copycats.

The game was not played under NFHS rules.

And I'd like you to show how what I said was incorrect. The NFHS rules doesn't say "fairly immediately," and the NCAA rules doesn't use either term.

There are legal snaps where the ball does not leave the hand until the arm is well underway with its motion in a front to back (or at an angle) way. I would NOT call that immediate.

When I post, I post regarding NFHS rules. I don't waste time researching where a clip came from.

Under NFHS rules, the play is illegal and the snap is illegal.

From another board, it was pointed out that the QB's head is breaking the waistline of the snapper. That makes the QB a lineman. Linemen cannot receive the snap in NCAA.

Apparently, according to a post on another board, a certain Dotson Lewis disagrees with you. Mr Lewis is supposedly someone of officiating renown in your home state. Maybe you should argue it with him.

For those that don't know, Mr. Lewis is also the training cooridator for the chapter in which those officials are from who allowed this play to take place without a flag. I am sure they know the proper rules by now. Way before my time, but Dotson was one of the ones who signed the Declaration of Independence. :D Well, maybe not that long ago, but he has been around Texas football for well over 50 years and he is still officiating on a high school crew. He is one of the ones who created our state association.

Heck, I'm British and even I know exactly who Dotson Lewis is and I'm 5,045 miles away as the crow flies.

It'd be like not knowing who Nelson, Adams, Shirley, Sprenger, Parry or Redding were..........

That's one helluva a crow! ;)

Who said the ball has to go between the snapper's legs, just because there's a player there taking advantage of the positioning rule? It says he may receive the snap himself, not that he has to take it from between the legs.

I think what he means is that when the QB is up in the line like he was here he needs to be in position to receive a hand to hand snap between the snapper's legs. If he is not, he will either be a lineman or a mugwomp. In this case he appeared to be just to the left of the snapper and up so close that by definition he was a lineman.

He knows all snaps do not have to be between the legs as we routinely see it done differently on swinging gate plays

Reportedly it WAS a major topic at that Chapter's weekly meeting following the game and the crew (younger officials) got "straightened out" as only we officials are able to do to one another.

Why do I have a feeling a large bar tab was involved?

I realize the player in position to receive the hand to hand snap doesn't have to actually receive the snap himself. What I was getting at was that a lineman cannot receive a snap. By rule, this QB meets all the requirements for being a lineman.

For NFHS, it depends on how you interpret "under": if it means "in a position to receive a hand-to-hand snap," then he's a back.

2-32-3: "A back is any A player who has no part of his body breaking the
plane of an imaginary line drawn parallel to the line of scrimmage through the
waist of the nearest teammate who is legally on the line, except for the player
under the snapper, who is also considered a back."

Bill LeMonnier and USA Football chime in

Peace

I think he was still in position to receive a hand-to-hand snap between the legs had it been delivered there. Didn't we decide here a while ago that as long as a player could reach from where he was standing, that he would be considered "in position" to receive a hand-to-hand snap between the legs? So just because his hands were momentarily someplace else doesn't mean he wasn't in the right position.

However, breaking the plane of the snapper's waist is another story. I think there are probably times in a normal formation where the QB's head may be leaning over the snapper far enough to be breaking that plane, but it's well accepted that he has a right to be there -- unless some day you want to be strict about it because it gives an advantage on a sneak. If he puts his head to the left or right of the snapper, then I think he deserves greater scrutiny for breaking the plane and therefore being considered a line player.

There's a lot in this for me to think about as a coach inasmuch as I want to install the sidesaddle T.

interesting that he considered the snap legal, saying nothing about its speed. I doubt USA Football's rules don't call for the snap to be quick, although it is conceivable inasmuch as Canadian rules don't.