"Sleeper" Play

[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.

[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!

[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.

[Robert Goodman]

This is a tough question because of the line-drawing problem. What if, for instance, they'd looked at the opposite sideline instead of the one their bench was on?

A blanket rule against making the other team think the ball isn't about to be put in play obviously can't be taken literally, because then it would outlaw the snap count, which is premised on fooling the defense as to when the ball is to be put in play. It would also outlaw various forms of quick play where the bulk of team A is at some remove from the ball when it's snapped. What distinguishes a play like this one from those is that it appears team A is ready, and then they show you something that suggests they're going to need a little extra time. But you get that same effect when for the previous half hour they've been snapping the ball when a man in motion is in a certain place, and then they snap the ball before he gets to that place.

I'm afraid the only way to resolve this is to get very specific rules or rulings in advance that make very specific actions legal or illegal, and that list would start out long & keep growing. Clearly it's part of the game of football (and of some other sports) to allow the team controlling the play of the ball to catch the opponents sleeping, and to use various means to induce them to be off guard, but also to not allow them to use certain other means to induce them to be off guard. Fed has already entered dangerous territory in their rules writing regarding team A's verbal or other action to induce team B to encroach -- which, taken literally, outlaws the snap count.