N. Carolina/Tennessee

[RealityCheck]

North Carolina committed at least three live-ball fouls on this play...

1) Illegal procedure for having 5 men lined up in the backfield.
2) Illegal substitution for having 5 extra players leaving the field obviously not participating in the play at the snap.
3) Illegal participation for having 12 players on the field in formation and not attempting to leave the field at the snap.

Obviously the illegal participation foul would have been elected to be enforced by Tennessee if it had been given the option.

A.R. 9-1-5 provides the basis for why illegal participation and not illegal substitution was the correct call....

Approved Ruling 9-1-5

I. Team A, with 12 men on the field of play, snaps at its 40-yard line and throws a complete or incomplete forward pass. RULING: Illegal participation. Penalty--15 yards from the previous spot.

VII. At the end of third down, Team B sends in its kick-return team. The responsible officials count the Team B players and it appears that Team B has 12 players on the field of play. While the officials are attempting to recount the players, the ball is snapped. At the end of the down, the officials recount the Team B players and are positive that Team B had 12 players participate during the down. RULING: Illegal participation on Team B. Penalty--15 yards from the previous spot. (Note: If the officials are not positive that a team has violated Rule 3-5-2-c, they should not sound their whistles and penalize the team five yards for a substitution violation.)

The officials were obviously not positive that North Carolina had 12 players in its offensive formation at the snap on this spike play, and there were obviously 12 players on the field at the end of the play. The illegal participation call was cut and dried, and it should have been made by the replay official since the field officials missed it.

If North Carolina had played with 11 players in formation and not five in the backfield, then the illegal substitution call for the extra players leaving the field at the snap would have been the correct call as the only foul on the play. But illegal participation and illegal substitution were both live-ball fouls. Any conference manuals that state that a replay offcial cannot review this live-ball situation would seem to be in violation of both A.R. 9-1-5 and Rule 12-3-5-a. The replay official has the power to review the illegal participation under 12-3-5-a, "The number of players participating by either team during a live ball."

I think much of the confusion is that two different parts of the illegal substitution rule are in play here. What the replay official could not review would be the dead-ball foul for having 12 players on the field prior to the snap. The live-ball illegal substitution foul that was called was for having players in excess of 11 leaving the field while the ball is in play. The live-ball illegal substitution foul doesn't cancel out illegal participation if 12 players remain on the field, while you can't have illegal participation when a dead-ball illegal substitution foul is called.

If the illegal substitution had been a dead-ball foul, more than one second would have been the correct time to put on the clock.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by RealityCheck

North Carolina committed at least three live-ball fouls on this play...

1) Illegal procedure for having 5 men lined up in the backfield.
2) Illegal substitution for having 5 extra players leaving the field obviously not participating in the play at the snap.
3) Illegal participation for having 12 players on the field in formation and not attempting to leave the field at the snap.

Obviously the illegal participation foul would have been elected to be enforced by Tennessee if it had been given the option.

A.R. 9-1-5 provides the basis for why illegal participation and not illegal substitution was the correct call....

Approved Ruling 9-1-5

I. Team A, with 12 men on the field of play, snaps at its 40-yard line and throws a complete or incomplete forward pass. RULING: Illegal participation. Penalty--15 yards from the previous spot.

VII. At the end of third down, Team B sends in its kick-return team. The responsible officials count the Team B players and it appears that Team B has 12 players on the field of play. While the officials are attempting to recount the players, the ball is snapped. At the end of the down, the officials recount the Team B players and are positive that Team B had 12 players participate during the down. RULING: Illegal participation on Team B. Penalty--15 yards from the previous spot. (Note: If the officials are not positive that a team has violated Rule 3-5-2-c, they should not sound their whistles and penalize the team five yards for a substitution violation.)

The officials were obviously not positive that North Carolina had 12 players in its offensive formation at the snap on this spike play, and there were obviously 12 players on the field at the end of the play. The illegal participation call was cut and dried, and it should have been made by the replay official since the field officials missed it.

If North Carolina had played with 11 players in formation and not five in the backfield, then the illegal substitution call for the extra players leaving the field at the snap would have been the correct call as the only foul on the play. But illegal participation and illegal substitution were both live-ball fouls. Any conference manuals that state that a replay offcial cannot review this live-ball situation would seem to be in violation of both A.R. 9-1-5 and Rule 12-3-5-a. The replay official has the power to review the illegal participation under 12-3-5-a, "The number of players participating by either team during a live ball."

I think much of the confusion is that two different parts of the illegal substitution rule are in play here. What the replay official could not review would be the dead-ball foul for having 12 players on the field prior to the snap. The live-ball illegal substitution foul that was called was for having players in excess of 11 leaving the field while the ball is in play. The live-ball illegal substitution foul doesn't cancel out illegal participation if 12 players remain on the field, while you can't have illegal participation when a dead-ball illegal substitution foul is called.

If the illegal substitution had been a dead-ball foul, more than one second would have been the correct time to put on the clock.

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.

[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.

There was no "could have had an illegal formation" because North Carolina in fact did have 5 players lined up in the backfield on the play in question. Off the line of scrimmage it had a wide receiver left, a slot receiver right, the quarterback, a holder, and a kicker. That issue is a red herring here though regarding illegal participation/substitution.

There were 17 North Carolina players on the field when the ball was snapped. Five of those players were attempting to leave the field before the ball was snapped, and all of those five were outside the numbers at the snap and when the ball was spiked. That is the live-ball illegal substitution foul that was called.

There were still 12 North Carolina players who were in the offensive formation between the numbers and not attempting to leave the field at the completion of the spike to stop the clock. Those 12 players all participated in that down...that is covered by the definition of "player" in Rule 2-27-6.

I listed the A.R. 9-1-5 articles since they are on point as to when illegal participation can be determined, and the exact play situation in A.R. 9-1-5-VII is not relevant. The play situation in A.R. 9-1-5-I covers exactly what occured on this play regarding participation...12 players on the field for a complete or incomplete forward pass. The pre-snap determination of illegal substitution for more than 11 players on the field was not made on this play as covered in A.R. 9-1-5-VII. That illegal substitution foul if called would have been enforced as a dead-ball foul, and more than one second would have been put back on the clock. Since that dead-ball foul call was not made, officials are still obligated to determine if more than 11 players participated in the down that was completed with the spike to stop the clock under the enforcement principle covered in A.R. 9-1-5-VII.

Both the live-ball illegal substitution foul for excess players leaving the field and illegal participation for 12 players participating in the play should have been reported on this play. Tennessee should have had the option to decline illegal formation, decline illegal substitution, and accept illegal participation. That is what the letter, spirit, and philosophy of the rules require.

[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.