N. Carolina/Tennessee

[ottobabble]

I have seen the IP vs IS debate in the last several posts on this board. I cannot buy the argument as to why 12 men in the formation at the snap is not IP, even if it was a spike (frankly, the arguments in favor of IS for this resemble a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling and do not make any sense). I am not a college official, but my four other crew mates on my HS crew are, and I intend to pick their collective brains on this.

I just wish the Parry or the current Big X supervisor of officials address that specific point. All releases I have seen to date involve the clock, but not the potential IP.

Funny thing is that I have absolutely no stake in this as I could care less who won this game, but I do love to discuss rule issues.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by RealityCheck

NCAA officials signal 19 is listed with the National Federation description "Illegal procedure" as recently as the 2004 NCAA Football Rules. It is a valid general term for the various infractions enforced using signal 19.

Not since the phrase was removed from the book, it isn't.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Not since the phrase was removed from the book, it isn't.

Being removed from the book, having not so long ago being a proper rulebook term is far from being a term that was never correct.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Being removed from the book, having not so long ago being a proper rulebook term is far from being a term that was never correct.

It hasn't been correct for some time now. Why would someone go to so much trouble to write up such a detailed post, get that one detail wrong, and then argue about it when someone points out that it is incorrect?

I'll remember to use the phrase "force out" in my basketball game tomorrow. It was a correct phrase once.

[TXMike]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

You unfortunately lost a lot of credibility using the term "illegal procedure" at the beginning of this post. There is no such foul in any rule book and only exists in the words of announcers. This would be an illegal formation. You are correct though that they could have had an illegal formation with 5 players in the backfield.

Your AR play for illegal participation doesn't fit completely because that is assuming there was a play involving all 12 players (a scrimmage kick). In this play, the extra players did not actually participate. Just because they were on the field at the snap does mean they participated. I think you can support an IP call if it had been called but I think the appropriate call in this case was illegal substitution. There is the letter of the rules and the spirit and philosophy of the rules.

If there was ever a play where one could argue the 12th player did not "participate", it is a spike. But the problem in this play is that there were a kicker AND a holder in formation. That could mean the QB was really the 12th player and he clearly DID participate. I am not sure I have ever seen an IP call against the offense but I have seen several against the defense. And some of those have included plays where not everyone on defense "participated". I am not sure we could ever develop a workable definition of "participates" that could cover all situations. Therefore, aren't we better off going with the simple one of: 12 in the formation, nobody leaving before snap or leaving during live ball = IP?

This is a very severe penalty for sure and you hate to see such a severe penalty for a relatively minor infraction. It was even more severe not that many years ago when the offended team could choose to have it enforced from previous spot or succeeding spot.

The ARs do not seem to imply the 12th player actually has to do anything before the IP flag is justified.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by RealityCheck

That's exactly how the CFL calls it in "stop time" in the last 3:00 of each half. The right to run the play is lost when the ball isn't snapped in time.

A team shouldn't be rewarded for running time off the clock at the end of a half or game, take a delay penalty, and then still get to run the play over again.

LD used to be the penalty for any failure to snap in time in Canadian football, and it had a certain "use it or lose it" logic. However, that logic fails when you realize team A could always commit a foul preventing the ball from being put in play with a second left on the time count, and loss of down seems much too great a penalty for most such infractions.

However, this whole business of setting up fast to spike the ball is an artifact of a more basic distortion-inducing timing rule: handling timing between downs differently depending on how the ball last became dead. Address that one and you'll be on your way to getting rid of the chaos.

[bisonlj]

"Illegal procedure" may be a fairly recent removal (6 years ago) but I know any meeting or clinic I go to, a good sign of a guy who is not current is the guy using the term "illegal procedure". Same as the wing who argues he can work better starting on the field rather than the sideline. The game evolves and anyone using the term "illegal procedure" is either a coach, announcer, or an official who is not current.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

Same as the wing who argues he can work better starting on the field rather than the sideline.

Oh goodie...let's start that argument again.