I would have let it go. I still am trying to figure what rule they technically broke.

nfhs 9-9-5

If this was the first goofy incident of the night, I think this might be a little unfair and hindsight-driven. I can see how this went unflagged. They were probably thinking "what the...." once the holder started into the monkey routine, but the snap was quick enough that it probably snapped them back to officiating the play. By the time it was all over and they realized what exactly had happened, it was too late in their view. Only the ref had a real good look at it anyway, the others were likely paying attention elsewhere. I doubt any of them ever had a similar play or anything even close to it, so being surprised and 'frozen' for a second or so seems entirely understandable.

However, I hope at the least there was a warning to the coach that there'd better not be any more circus acts again.

Monkey see, monkey do:

[youtube=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKiVerMbxns[/youtube]

Im travelling this week for work, and my books are back at home. I cant find a electronic copy on the web.

Can someone please sum up this rule for me, and what provision this play broke thanks.

ART. 5 . . . Neither team shall commit any act which, in the opinion of the referee, tends to make a travesty of the game.

PENALTY: Unfair act – the referee enforces any penalty he considers equitable, including the award of a score – (S27). Repeated fouls (Art. 2) – the game may be forfeited. Hiding the ball under a jersey, (Art. 3) (S27) – 15 yards basic spot. Using illegal kicking tee, (Art. 4), (S27) – 15 yards basic spot.

A similar situation occurred up in Boone, NC several years ago when a player went in motion doing flips. The officials shut it down and flagged the coach for USC. He no longer is employed there. It made the rounds on YouTube too.

Note that 9-9-5 is a god-rule: the referee can impose "any penalty he considers equitable."

For the play in question, you could impose LOD and cancel the try. I probably wouldn't, unless this crap had been going on all game, but it's an option.

First of all, I fully agree with those that believe this play should have been shut down per 9-9-5. Also, I remember the play that HLinNC described and at the following season's State Clinic the call by the officials was fully supported by our State Supervisor.

Now for those that do not support 9-9-5 ... At the very least, I believe they are in an Illegal Formation ... As soon as CoCo the holder starts his "motion", there is no longer a holder in position to recieve the snap per 2-14-2 and they are no longer in Scrimmage Kick Formation. With #12 as the snapper, they do not have 5 linemen 50-79 on the LOS.

Read 2-14-2 & 7-2-5 carefully and note that both rules state "at the snap".

You should call USC on the Coach for letting it happen and walk it off on the kick off, if it is his second USC, bye-bye!

Last years rules but what the heck!

http://bfoa.net/pdfs/2012-NFHS-Football-Rule-Book.pdf


Casebook there too.

9.9.1 SITUATION B: From a field goal formation, potential kicker A1 yells,
“Where’s the tee?” A2 replies, “I’ll go get it” and goes legally in motion toward
his team’s sideline. Ball is snapped to A1 who throws a touchdown pass to A2.
RULING: Unsportsmanlike conduct prior to snap. The ball should be declared
dead and the foul enforced as a dead-ball foul. 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.

Thank you for posting the link to the rule book! looked forever for a copy online.

Ok after reading the rule and re-watching the play. Im one of those people who would let it go off. I dont like bringing too much subjectivity to "travesty of the game" it is a slippery slope to go down.

It is stupid yes, but to me it doesnt rise to the level of travesty and I thought it was stupidly clever. It can be argued that it wasnt meant to deceive any more than a receiver running a long route on a draw play. But I digress, this is why subjective things like this in the rule book are tricky. Everyone has a different line.

I will go look closer at the numbering exception point borught up above. That may be a way to kill the play on a rule that is black and white.

It is not "subjectivity," it is judgment, and it is what you are paid to use. :)

If you disagree that this play is a travesty, please describe a play where you would apply 9-9-5. Would it have to involve a moat and some alligators?

Direct snap to the kicker, who starts running backwards in circles chased by scantily clad women while the PA system plays "Yakety Sax".

Actually, the more I think about it, I would let that situation play out.

I remember the play you are talking about. But which person do you mean by "He is no longer employed there."?

The coach? Or the official?

But then you wouldn't need 9-9-5. Just flag the women for IP. ;)

Not much different than the barking dog play in basketball.