"Sleeper" Play

[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!

[zm1283]

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.

That's not up to you, or other officials, to judge.

Aside from the opinions of certain officials, there's still nothing in the rule book that prohibits this specifically. The center's hand was on the ball and it could have been snapped at any time. (And was) If you don't want to get burned by it, watch the ball and wake up.