Illegal substitution to ice the kicker

[voiceoflg]

Cincinnati vs. Duke in the Belk Bowl. Bearcats are out of timeouts and Duke is lining up for a 53 yard field goal. Either right before the snap or right as the snap occurred (I don't recall which) Cincy sends out a 12th defender, prompting a whistle and a flag. As the whistle is blown the ball is already snapped and kicked, and the ball goes through the uprights. But with the play blown dead, no points are awarded. The yards were marked off, but the next snap, the kicker misses the 48 yard attempt. Cincy's benefits from the intentional penalty.

As I read the rule, the officials got it right. Blow the play dead as there were 12 men on the field when the snap was imminent or had just occurred.

So, I have two questions.

1. What is the NFHS correlation? Can a team without timeouts run a 12th defender out to "ice" the kicker?

2. Should the rule be changed? I would like to see the play be played out and let the offense choose to let the play stand or accept the penalty...within reason. If the whole team runs out on the field, then blow the play dead, obviously.

What are your thoughts on this? I'll hang up and listen.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by voiceoflg

Cincinnati vs. Duke in the Belk Bowl. Bearcats are out of timeouts and Duke is lining up for a 53 yard field goal. Either right before the snap or right as the snap occurred (I don't recall which) Cincy sends out a 12th defender, prompting a whistle and a flag. As the whistle is blown the ball is already snapped and kicked, and the ball goes through the uprights. But with the play blown dead, no points are awarded. The yards were marked off, but the next snap, the kicker misses the 48 yard attempt. Cincy's benefits from the intentional penalty.

As I read the rule, the officials got it right. Blow the play dead as there were 12 men on the field when the snap was imminent or had just occurred.

So, I have two questions.

1. What is the NFHS correlation? Can a team without timeouts run a 12th defender out to "ice" the kicker?

Who cares? They can just encroach on the neutral zone if they want to kill the ready-for-play. Or take out their mouth guards.

[HLin NC]

Would be the same result under NFHS. The philosophy is to kill it if noticed as a dead ball foul to prevent it turning into Illegal participation with a 15 yard penalty.

You could change it but all B/R has to do is jump offside as Robt. said so there is more than one way to skin a cat.

You can't legislate every conceivable potential inequity out of the game. Cincinnati just out coached Cutcliffe there.

[voiceoflg]

Thanks for the information. And I can't believe my brain flatulence. Of course there are other ways to get the penalty. You can tell I'm in off-season form.

Thanks again.

[jchamp]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

Would be the same result under NFHS. The philosophy is to kill it if noticed as a dead ball foul to prevent it turning into Illegal participation with a 15 yard penalty.

You could change it but all B/R has to do is jump offside as Robt. said so there is more than one way to skin a cat.

You can't legislate every conceivable potential inequity out of the game. Cincinnati just out coached Cutcliffe there.

I missed the game, so I don't know if there was other conversation to indicate it was intentional. I think we've all seen plenty of special teams plays with confusion regarding who is supposed to be on the field that, without further knowledge, it is plausible that there was legitimate confusion.

I "took" a point off the board in a game this year by waiting until VERY late to verify my 12-man B count on a try. On the subsequent play after enforcement, the kick was blocked. In hindsight, I think in the future if it took that long, I would allow a snap to occur since the penalty is the same (half the distance) in either case in my old situation. The reason I mention that is because if it is almost simultaneous with the snap, I would probably now tend to allow the play to occur and give A the 15 yards + re-try opportunity. I would do THAT, because as you mentioned, there is a much less unsporting way to ice the kicker.

And, as provided for in the rules, if they continue to ice the kicker as such, WH can consider it an unsporting act and take necessary action, including the award of a score.

[HLin NC]

The FG attempt was just before halftime. Even with the 5 yd penalty, Duke missed the second attempt. Cutcliffe was interviewed as the teams left the field and he said it was an unsporting way to ice the kicker. That got the discussion started.

Probably true but under our new Schiano Method of "all's fair in love and war", smart move by Cincy.

[maven]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

The FG attempt was just before halftime. Even with the 5 yd penalty, Duke missed the second attempt. Cutcliffe was interviewed as the teams left the field and he said it was an unsporting way to ice the kicker. That got the discussion started.

Probably true but under our new Schiano Method of "all's fair in love and war", smart move by Cincy.

The only remedy I can think of would be the nuclear option of treating this as an unfair act and penalizing the offending team 15 rather than 5 (or, the global thermonuclear option of awarding a score). If one crew did that, coaches might not think it's such a clever tactic.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by jchamp

I "took" a point off the board in a game this year by waiting until VERY late to verify my 12-man B count on a try. On the subsequent play after enforcement, the kick was blocked. In hindsight, I think in the future if it took that long, I would allow a snap to occur since the penalty is the same (half the distance) in either case in my old situation.

Actually no, it's not. K could take the point and have the 15 yards assessed on the subsequent kickoff.