"Sleeper" Play

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by scrounge

Thanks, but I can read pretty well. You can disagree, fine, but no need to be an ass about it.

It was not my intent to be an "ass" (and no need to call me one).

It's not a matter of disagreement - Your statement was a complete reversal of the actual rule we're talking about. If it was a typo as one suggested ... fine... but missing a "not" as a typo makes a pretty big difference, don't you think? Calling someone out for saying the opposite of the truth is not being an "ass".

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

It was not my intent to be an "ass" (and no need to call me one).

It's not a matter of disagreement - Your statement was a complete reversal of the actual rule we're talking about. If it was a typo as one suggested ... fine... but missing a "not" as a typo makes a pretty big difference, don't you think? Calling someone out for saying the opposite of the truth is not being an "ass".

Saying someone can't read is...well, that's exactly how it came across. And yes, it was a typo to omit "not" but I stand by my larger disagreement that this is a clear-cut violation of the rules. I thought the overall context of my post was clear, but if not, shame on me for leaving it out. Again, though, a snap not being imminent is one condition in the case example...but not the only one. In the absence of something else, I think this play is somewhat bush but legal.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by scrounge

Again, though, a snap not being imminent is one condition in the case example...but not the only one. In the absence of something else, I think this play is somewhat bush but legal.

The case ruling applies to "actions or verbiage", and it strikes me that the body language of every player out there, except the snapper who could not stand back up by rule, was designed to give the impression that a snap was not imminent. At best, it's a overly clever coach trying to dodge the ruling.

I didn't play it with audio, so I don't know if there are any words to go along with the actions, but I don't think there need to be in this case.

[OKREF]

If this was the first time the whole game that this action has occured, then it was probably an act to draw the defense offsides, however if they have done it all game, it is nothing. On a side note, last night, had a team do this, well the part with all the lineman standing up and it was in the fourth quarter in a pretty tight game, and they hadn't done it all night. Defense didn't jump, but our crew talked about it, and if they had we were going with a penalty against the offense.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

What you might coach is irrelevant. The rule quite plainly says that you can't do this. And this (or very similar plays) is what we see in videos during clinics to explain this rule.

I never said I coached defensive linemen, and I didn't say it was relevant. I'm saying it's the defense's fault. Standing up to look at the sideline for a play is very normal in football. I still say it's legal.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by zm1283

I never said I coached defensive linemen, and I didn't say it was relevant. I'm saying it's the defense's fault. Standing up to look at the sideline for a play is very normal in football. I still say it's legal.

Sure, it's normal to stand up and look for the play. 99.99998% of the time when 10 of the 11 offensive players look to the coaches for a play, the snap doesn't come until they get back into their stances. So, it's not a normal play to snap the ball while everyone is looking at the coaches.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

did anyone say anything? Just the fact that they stood up and looked at the sidelines?
that is all it takes?

That's all it takes.

We had a second round playoff game last week where on fourth down the punting team lined up in a two point stance and at a designed time, stood up and abruptly looked towards the sideline. Defense jumped.

False start. No brainer for me.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by zm1283

I never said I coached defensive linemen, and I didn't say it was relevant. I'm saying it's the defense's fault. Standing up to look at the sideline for a play is very normal in football. I still say it's legal.

Not when all the linemen do it abruptly at the same time. Then it's done solely to draw the defense into encroaching. Then it's a false start.

[PAUmpire]

Originally Posted by scrounge

I'm not so sure it's that clear cut....the comment posted above says if the offense leads the defense to believe there's a problem AND a snap is imminent. If they just look at the sideline for the play, in what way have they led the defense to believe there's a problem? The "this ball is flat" bush league play certainly meets that condition, but I don't see that in this case. This one falls into the "say we're spiking it and run a play (NOT a fake kneel or spike but just saying it pre-snap)" a la the Lions a couple weeks ago, IMO.

I agree without sound, I cant definitely say they was unfair act however, as being discussed. If the D had jumped when they all rose up, I would have flagged false start. But just because the Lineman are up doesn't mean the ball cant be snapped.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Rich

Not when all the linemen do it abruptly at the same time. Then it's done solely to draw the defense into encroaching. Then it's a false start.

In this case, it wasn't done to draw the defense into the NZ. It was done to make them think a snap wasn't coming.

The proof of that, for me, is that the only three offensive players who moved were the snapper, the QB, and the WR.

To me, that makes it obvious that the actions were designed to make the defense think the snap wasn't imminent.

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by Adam

In this case, it wasn't done to draw the defense into the NZ. It was done to make them think a snap wasn't coming.

The proof of that, for me, is that the only three offensive players who moved were the snapper, the QB, and the WR.

To me, that makes it obvious that the actions were designed to make the defense think the snap wasn't imminent.

Ok, I can agree with that. But did they also do or say anything to lead the defense to believe there's a problem? The example doesn't just talk about a snap being not imminent, but also that there's some kind of problem. If they so much as said "what's the play" or something, then I'd agree it's illegal deception. But if they just looked over without simulating the snap or doing/saying something out of the ordinary, I say tough luck, legal deception.

[maven]

Originally Posted by scrounge

Ok, I can agree with that. But did they also do or say anything to lead the defense to believe there's a problem? The example doesn't just talk about a snap being not imminent, but also that there's some kind of problem. If they so much as said "what's the play" or something, then I'd agree it's illegal deception. But if they just looked over without simulating the snap or doing/saying something out of the ordinary, I say tough luck, legal deception.

So you want to hang your hat on the part of the rule that reads, "there is a problem AND a snap is not imminent?" I guess since the rules don't define 'problem', you get to use your judgment about whether this qualifies.

Scrounge, we're from the same part of the world, so let me ask you this (and I don't mean this question as any kind of insult or rudeness). Do you think this is good football? Is this play what the game is really about? What you want to watch on Friday, or Saturday, or Sunday?

If not (and now I'll address a wider audience), why do so many people work so hard to get this crap into the game on a technical and dubious reading of the rules? There are legal ways to catch the defense napping: no huddle, quick counts, etc. Do we really need these cheap ways too?

Defense is hard enough in a game that is evolving to make for higher scoring games. Let's not make it too hard.

[PAUmpire]

Originally Posted by maven

So you want to hang your hat on the part of the rule that reads, "there is a problem AND a snap is not imminent?" I guess since the rules don't define 'problem', you get to use your judgment about whether this qualifies.

Scrounge, we're from the same part of the world, so let me ask you this (and I don't mean this question as any kind of insult or rudeness). Do you think this is good football? Is this play what the game is really about? What you want to watch on Friday, or Saturday, or Sunday?

If not (and now I'll address a wider audience), why do so many people work so hard to get this crap into the game on a technical and dubious reading of the rules? There are legal ways to catch the defense napping: no huddle, quick counts, etc. Do we really need these cheap ways too?

Defense is hard enough in a game that is evolving to make for higher scoring games. Let's not make it too hard.

Maven you make a great point. You got me to really think about it and you are partially right. This is kind of bush league and I wouldnt want to see this dominate the game. However if I see it once or twice a season, I am ok with that.

I just really wish we had sound on this play to hear what was being yelled out. For all we know someone could have been yelling, "snap it now!"

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by maven

So you want to hang your hat on the part of the rule that reads, "there is a problem AND a snap is not imminent?" I guess since the rules don't define 'problem', you get to use your judgment about whether this qualifies.

Scrounge, we're from the same part of the world, so let me ask you this (and I don't mean this question as any kind of insult or rudeness). Do you think this is good football? Is this play what the game is really about? What you want to watch on Friday, or Saturday, or Sunday?

If not (and now I'll address a wider audience), why do so many people work so hard to get this crap into the game on a technical and dubious reading of the rules? There are legal ways to catch the defense napping: no huddle, quick counts, etc. Do we really need these cheap ways too?

Defense is hard enough in a game that is evolving to make for higher scoring games. Let's not make it too hard.

I think we agree on more than might appear. I agree it's bush and crap and not something I'd want to see either. I just am not sure it's against the rules from what we saw in that audio-less clip. It's one of those plays that works once a season, then everyone's wised up to it. And I'd have no problem if someone killed it as an unfair act. I'm just saying I'm not sure it's obviously illegal. Rather than struggling to find a way to make it legal, I look at it from the POV that the rules say what is illegal and absent it not saying it, then it's legal. This may be the only one of these goofy "pause" plays that slips in under the rules. But again, totally reasonable argument for killing it. It certainly offends my sensibilities. I'm just not sure it really does more than that, though.

[maven]

Originally Posted by scrounge

I think we agree on more than might appear. I agree it's bush and crap and not something I'd want to see either. I just am not sure it's against the rules from what we saw in that audio-less clip. It's one of those plays that works once a season, then everyone's wised up to it. And I'd have no problem if someone killed it as an unfair act. I'm just saying I'm not sure it's obviously illegal. Rather than struggling to find a way to make it legal, I look at it from the POV that the rules say what is illegal and absent it not saying it, then it's legal. This may be the only one of these goofy "pause" plays that slips in under the rules. But again, totally reasonable argument for killing it. It certainly offends my sensibilities. I'm just not sure it really does more than that, though.

I think we do agree, which is why I'm puzzled that you seem to be defending this play. Go with your gut, man!