"Sleeper" Play

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by 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.

Saw something similar in a playoff game this year, but the QB was the only one looking to the sideline. Do you feel that is a foul as well? The other issue the crew missed is the QB was still in motion when the ball was snapped and the RB next to him had taken 2 steps to the side to receive the snap. They should have been flagged for an illegal shift or illegal motion (depending on whether you judged the back had stopped for 1 second prior to the snap).

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

Saw something similar in a playoff game this year, but the QB was the only one looking to the sideline. Do you feel that is a foul as well? The other issue the crew missed is the QB was still in motion when the ball was snapped and the RB next to him had taken 2 steps to the side to receive the snap. They should have been flagged for an illegal shift or illegal motion (depending on whether you judged the back had stopped for 1 second prior to the snap).

No, of course not... and I've seen crews miss the illegal motion call on these offenses that do this often as well. It was an area of focus about 5 years ago at a clinic I attended in Dallas - it got better after that but not perfect.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

No, of course not... and I've seen crews miss the illegal motion call on these offenses that do this often as well. It was an area of focus about 5 years ago at a clinic I attended in Dallas - it got better after that but not perfect.

I agree, but if 1 guy looking is OK and 10 guys looking is not, what is the cutoff? This is a judgement call for all officials so you will probably never see consistency.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

I agree, but if 1 guy looking is OK and 10 guys looking is not, what is the cutoff? This is a judgement call for all officials so you will probably never see consistency.

The cutoff (for me) is somewhere between 1 and 10.

Sometime before all the linemen (except the snapper) stand up and stare at the coaching staff.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

I agree, but if 1 guy looking is OK and 10 guys looking is not, what is the cutoff? This is a judgement call for all officials so you will probably never see consistency.

There is no numeric cutoff. The rule is about the offense designing their actions to fool the defense into thinking the snap is not imminent. If linemen are ready to play and back are looking off to the side, I likely don't see this as intended deception. If linemen go from a stance to standing up and looking to the sideline - and the ball is then snapped ... this seems clearly designed to make the defense think there's no snap coming. Especially if the first immediate action is ONE player heading downfield for a pass and no other players reacting to the snap other than the QB.