The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 03, 2011, 02:19am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 26
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.

Last edited by RealityCheck; Mon Jan 03, 2011 at 02:27am.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 03, 2011, 03:11am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Kansas
Posts: 12
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 03, 2011, 04:51am
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by RealityCheck View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 03, 2011, 04:59am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN View Post
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 03, 2011, 05:03am
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tennessee/LSU jimpiano Football 6 Fri Oct 08, 2010 09:10am
NFL -- Tennessee vs NY Jets Juulie Downs Football 6 Mon Sep 28, 2009 04:46pm
need tennessee info cloverdale Basketball 4 Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:26am
Tennessee/LSU Kirby Football 6 Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:37pm
Tennessee vs. Michigan Mountaineer Softball 30 Thu Jun 01, 2006 07:39am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:07am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1