"Sleeper" Play

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

At least you have a clear line of demarcation! This is definitely a judgement call. I would tell the coach he's running a risk by running the play. He may force to make a judgement call, and he may not like our judgement. Play football and it shouldn't be a problem.

[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.

[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.