"Sleeper" Play

[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.

[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.

[Adam]

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.

Again, I don't know whether they said anything, but when 10 players look to the sideline, doesn't that all but scream "what's the play?"

Sorry, this play is designed solely to make the defense think the snap isn't imminent. Seems pretty clear cut to me, honestly. Dancing around what words they used when their intent was completely clear to everyone doesn't change the fact that this should (IMO) be shut down.

[RadioBlue]

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?

Yes, they did. They all stood up and looked to the sideline because they didn't have a play called. Nothing needs to be verbalized in order to demonstrate that there is a problem. Everything was done to cause it to appear a snap was not imminent.