Trick extra point
 

I believe we've discussed this here before but couldn't remember the outcome. I'm white hat in a JV game. The coach tells me about a trick extra point right before it happens.

The holder acts like he's kneeling but his knee is about 2 inches off the ground. Takes the snap and does a modified statue of liberty play and they score 2 on a sweep.

Something strikes me like the 'hey coach I need a new ball' trickery play. Thoughts? Would you kill it or let it go?

Like this from 1999?

Link

We are in NFHS rules

The holder may start on his knee during a try: this trickery is needless. He must rise from his knee to pass (forward or backward), run, or hand the ball off. Starting with his knee 1 inch off the ground will not excuse him from needing to rise before running or passing.

If he does not rise, I will probably rule the ball dead according to 4-2-2a Exception.

Then you are making up your own rule. Some deception is a part of football- no different than a fake handoff, pump fake, fake spike, faking a blitz.

After research, the casebook clearly defines this as legal if he rises up from the ground.

It's legal whether he rises or not.

He is not required to put his knee on the ground. If his knee is off the ground, he can legally hand the ball off or pass it without standing.

The wrong ball play is deceiving the defense into believing there's a problem and the ball isn't going to be snapped. That's why it's illegal. This play is a legal deception AFTER the ball is snapped. The two plays are not the same at all.

So, you would allow the holder to throw a pass with his knee on the ground? At the time he has his knee on the ground and does something besides be a holder, I'm killing the play and ruling him down.

Nobody ever said the knee was on the ground. If it's clearly off the ground, he doesn't have to rise further.

Perfectly fine in NCAA rules.

You said in the OP that his knee was never down.

Ah, I agree

I agree with this, provided that it's clear that the knee is not down. That might be less than clear in the OP.

Clear to the official, not necessarily clear to the defense.

True, but it probably needs to be clear to 3 officials, as the wings might blow this dead, too.

In a traditional field goal formation, the wings should be looking at the ends and upbacks, not at the holder. The holder and kicker should be 100% the R's responsibility.

This.

I have no idea what the kicker and holder are doing in a 5 man crew.
I've got the LOS all the way as the LJ is back with BJ.
In four man, which is rare anymore for me as most of our JV games have added a BJ, I do have K&H protection after the kick as R has to look up to assist the LJ.

In Ohio, U and B have the uprights, and the wings are on the line.

And I realize that the holder is not their primary. My point was, if they see him pass or hand off without rising, they might kill it.

If my wings blow this dead, we're having a mechanics discussion. The holder/kicker are 100% mine.

It's not their place to do so. Period.

Same in MN.

So, with OH/MN mechanics:
R has kicker/holder.
H and L have ends, upbacks.
B and U have interior linemen (U has snapper) and uprights.

I'm not sure how it would work with regular FED-approved mechanics, as I've never used them in this situation. But still, the wing(s) should NEVER be looking at the holder.

Is his knee on the ground or is it 2" off the ground like you said in the OP?

#Makeupyourmind

REPLY: BktBallRef said, "He is not required to put his knee on the ground." That's true in general, but if the team plans on using the numbering exception, then they must be in a legal scrimmage kick formation. That DOES require that the holder has a knee (or knees) on the ground. So if a team had less than five numbered 50-79 on the line and ran the play from the original post, there would be illegal formation at the snap.

Was just about to post this. Thank you.

Don't go fishing in someone else's pond.

Go ahead and bookmark this page. You'll want it when it's time to fill out the ejection report.

It's a good point -- one which I was aware of, but not mentioned in the original post. Many schools around here do not use a numbering exception on a try.