"Sleeper" Play

[scrounge]

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'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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by scrounge

the comment posted above says if the offense leads the defense to believe there's a problem AND a snap is imminent.

Reading is fundamental... the rule says the EXACT opposite.

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Reading is fundamental... the rule says the EXACT opposite.

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

[maven]

Originally Posted by scrounge

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

scrounge, you omitted a crucial "not" in your summary of the rule: "...a snap is NOT imminent..."

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by maven

scrounge, you omitted a crucial "not" in your summary of the rule: "...a snap is NOT imminent..."

No, I'm aware of that, but that's not the only condition in the case example. The case talks about when a team acts like there's a problem (a missing tee in the case book example) AND a snap isn't imminent. If they don't try to deceive by saying there's an administrative issue or some non-playing problem (the ball is flat, the tee is missing, etc), then I don't think it's as clear cut that this is illegal. If they're in formation, don't say or do anything outside of normal football acts except look over at the sideline, then I think a very reasonable case can be made that this is not an unfair act.

[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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by scrounge

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.

I think you're misunderstanding the "snap not being imminent" part.

The rules does not say this is a penalty if the snap is not imminent... it says it's a penalty if the actions (or words) of the offense are designed to make the defense think that the snap is not imminent. The entire team (but the center) looking toward the sideline is squarely within that definition (and is, or should be, an example used in your clinics when this rule is discusses).

[MD Longhorn]

To those late in the thread that would not call this illegal because they can't hear, and thus think there may not be any verbal cues... this is EXACTLY why they changed the rule from just verbal to 'actions or verbal'. I do agree that if someone was shouting, "snap it now", that might make it different... but it seems blatantly clear to me (and honestly, it worries me that it's not obvious to you) that this was a DESIGNED event intended to make the defense not believe a snap was imminent. I mean - they all look to the side, and only one player takes off at the snap. How could this not be designed to make the defense fall asleep. This play is the very definition of this rule.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Reading is fundamental... the rule says the EXACT opposite.

I'm assuming it was a typo rather than a reading issue.

[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.