"Sleeper" Play
 

TN Sleeper Play 484892) - YouTube

<iframe width="480" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/0fwONKDsLEc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Unfair act. Kill it, UNS prior to the snap, 15 yards.

These plays run afoul of the principle in (NFHS) 9.9.1B COMMENT:

"Football has been and always will be a game of deception and trickery involving multiple shifts, unusual formations and creative plays. However, actions or verbiage designed to confuse the defense into believing there is problem and a snap isn't imminent is beyond the scope of sportsmanship and is illegal."

And now every middle school and pop warner coach who sees this video, runs the play, and gets moved back 15 yards is going to scream.

At first I thought that was what happened, but I wonder if the defense just fell asleep while the offense was acting like they were doing one of those "stop and look at the sidelines to see what play we're calling" things. If it was that, then shame on them.

I'd be more inclined to accept that explanation if the linemen weren't all standing up and standing still at the snap after having been "down" in a 2-point stance.

Man, I have always been opposed to trick plays that were unethical or flat out illegal but this one does not seem to fit even in my book.

Why is it illegal?

Because:

did anyone say anything? Just the fact that they stood up and looked at the sidelines?
that is all it takes?

Just as in baseball, where the pitcher has legal and illegal ways to deceive a baserunner, so in football the offense has legal and illegal ways to deceive the defense.

Shifts, motion, reverses, hard counts, pump fakes, and play/action passes are all legal and widely accepted modes of deceiving the defense.

Sneaking a receiver from the sideline into the formation at the snap, illegal formations, illegal shifts, and many other "trick" plays are illegal modes of deceiving the defense.

NFHS has articulated the principle I quoted to help officials understand where the line should be drawn between legal and illegal deception. Actions or words that are intended to suggest that a snap is not imminent are illegal. They do not afford the defense a fair opportunity to play the down. The play in the OP qualifies, IMHO.

I think that this play is closer to the line than many. We see many teams that run a no-huddle offense and signal in their calls after the linemen have set. I could see a version of this play where the linemen did not stand up that I'd probably rule as legal: if the line is ready to go, then the defense had better be as well.

I just cannot say it.......
 

I am not so sure that I agree this is illegal either. The players do what they always do by standing up to get some signal from the sideline. Unless the players said something in addition, I cannot see this as an illegal play.

Peace

standing up and looking at the sideline is the very definition of an action that would make the defense think a snap is not imminent.

"What they always do" is get that signal and then reset. Getting that signal but not resetting is most definitely deceiving the defense into thinking a snap is not imminent.

I would like a ruling from my state association to go with a penalty here. Otherwise the defense should be aware that they can snap the ball in this situation. If the QB moved to the sideline then I would agree. But I am not convinced without some guidance from the state to say for sure. And I see your point as well as others, but I think that this is not clearly a foul.

Peace

Just got a message from the head clinician.

Does he like the play? "No."

Nonetheless, he rules it legal.

I will forward you his message, JRut.

Got the email. Thanks.

Peace

Guess I am done here! Got Rut agreeing with me! :D

We had a play last night.

4/2. Team has its punting unit in. Line is in a 2-point stance, bent over at the waist. Along with a hard count, the entire line very abruptly and simultaneously comes up at the waist and turns to look at the sideline. B player comes across.

The A bench was very unhappy when I ruled it a false start. To me, it was a no brainer.

i am sure NFHS didn't have this play in mind when the free blocking zone was established. A defensive tackle launching into the belly of the O-lineman would cause serious injury. So if you think this play is legal, i think you ought to rethink.

As long as he doesn't lead with the helmet I would have no problem. The linemen need to take some responsibility to protect themselves.

If you want to argue it's an unfair act, unless they say something like pretending there's something wrong with the ball or something, I disagree but at least there's a rule we can discuss. If you're going to make the argument you're making, though, where's the rule support for that beside your own sensibilities of what's right and wrong? The offense controls the snap, if they're not prepared then shame on them. As long as the contact is legal, no spearing, etc., then what's the issue?

Then the defense needs to pay better attention. When coaching defensive linemen, I'd would tell them that any time the center's hand is on the ball the snap is imminent.

I agree with you. I don't see how this is illegal. Is it kind of bush league? Yes, but I don't see where you draw the line.

I concur, The D line should have stayed focused on the snappers hands. The fact that he was still down should have tipped them off. Also I wish we had some sound, so we can see if there were words said that made this more unfair. "the ball is deflated" rule in the casebook. The actions alone i think dont really make this illegal in my judgement. I concur that it is bush-league though.

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.

Everyone standing up and staring at the sideline is practically screaming that there is no snap imminent. Just because the snapper keeps his head down, that means nothing. Isn't he prevented by rule from lifting his hand once he places it on the ball? The defense would know that, too.

I'd kill it.

I'm not so sure it's that clear cut....the comment posted above says if the offense leads the defense to believe there's a problem AND a snap is imminent. If they just look at the sideline for the play, in what way have they led the defense to believe there's a problem? The "this ball is flat" bush league play certainly meets that condition, but I don't see that in this case. This one falls into the "say we're spiking it and run a play (NOT a fake kneel or spike but just saying it pre-snap)" a la the Lions a couple weeks ago, IMO.

Reading is fundamental... the rule says the EXACT opposite.

Thanks, but I can read pretty well. You can disagree, fine, but no need to be an ass about it.

scrounge, you omitted a crucial "not" in your summary of the rule: "...a snap is NOT imminent..."

I'm assuming it was a typo rather than a reading issue.

No, I'm aware of that, but that's not the only condition in the case example. The case talks about when a team acts like there's a problem (a missing tee in the case book example) AND a snap isn't imminent. If they don't try to deceive by saying there's an administrative issue or some non-playing problem (the ball is flat, the tee is missing, etc), then I don't think it's as clear cut that this is illegal. If they're in formation, don't say or do anything outside of normal football acts except look over at the sideline, then I think a very reasonable case can be made that this is not an unfair act.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That's all it takes.

We had a second round playoff game last week where on fourth down the punting team lined up in a two point stance and at a designed time, stood up and abruptly looked towards the sideline. Defense jumped.

False start. No brainer for me.

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.

I agree without sound, I cant definitely say they was unfair act however, as being discussed. If the D had jumped when they all rose up, I would have flagged false start. But just because the Lineman are up doesn't mean the ball cant be snapped.

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.

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!"

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! :)

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.

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).

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.