Fake PAT

[PAUmpire]

Originally Posted by ump33

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".

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.

[maven]

Originally Posted by PAUmpire

I dont like bringing too much subjectivity to "travesty of the game" it is a slippery slope to go down.

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?

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by maven

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.

[Suudy]

Originally Posted by scrounge

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

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

[maven]

Originally Posted by Suudy

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

Failure to wear required equipment.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by PAUmpire

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.

Given that this is exactly the type of play used in clinics when discussing this rule, I humbly beg to differ with you.

[Robert Goodman]

I can't stream the video with my software, so I need to ask based on the discussion, is this a play wherein players bark either before or after the ball is put in play? If so, a question for those who consider it tending to make a travesty of the game: Do you count it as tending toward travesty because it distracts people from the play of the game? Or do you count it as that for some other reason?

Now, for those who consider it unsportsmanlike conduct: Do you consider it so because you think it's an unfair means of getting opponents to laugh, and hence distract them? Or do you consider it so because any sort of performance other than the play of the game itself is unsportsmanlike? If it's for the first reason, do you think there are any allowable means of trying to get opponents to laugh, and hence distract them? Would you allow tickling?

[Adam]

Robert, imagine the play this way.

Standard PAT set up, before the snap, the holder starts a monkey crawl in motion towards the sideline.

The ball is then snapped to the kicker, who throws a scoring pass.

It's not about making anyone laugh. It's about engaging in absurdity to distract from the game at hand in order to utilize that distraction for an advantage.

Similar to a "barking dog" play in basketball, where a player will get down on "all fours" and bark. While everyone looks at him, the team throws a pass to another player who is wide open due to the distraction.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Adam

Robert, imagine the play this way.

Standard PAT set up, before the snap, the holder starts a monkey crawl in motion towards the sideline.

Looking injured? Or just acting funny?

The ball is then snapped to the kicker, who throws a scoring pass.

It's not about making anyone laugh. It's about engaging in absurdity to distract from the game at hand in order to utilize that distraction for an advantage.

Similar to a "barking dog" play in basketball, where a player will get down on "all fours" and bark. While everyone looks at him, the team throws a pass to another player who is wide open due to the distraction.

Huh. To me those don't seem materially different than calling out funny signals in preparation for the snap, or to distract a batter in baseball, a golfer in golf, or a shooter in pool or tennis. Of course it's to create distraction, but it doesn't seem much different from all the other ways you'd try to distract an opponent.

It's be different if it were feigning injury.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Looking injured? Or just acting funny?


Huh. To me those don't seem materially different than calling out funny signals in preparation for the snap, or to distract a batter in baseball, a golfer in golf, or a shooter in pool or tennis. Of course it's to create distraction, but it doesn't seem much different from all the other ways you'd try to distract an opponent.

It's be different if it were feigning injury.

So are you ok with the "wrong ball" play?

[HLin NC]

Then there's this.

Hence the wonderful Ignore function on the control panel.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Adam

So are you ok with the "wrong ball" play?

No, because in such cases it's not clear to the other team that a distraction is intended.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Looking injured? Or just acting funny?


Huh. To me those don't seem materially different than calling out funny signals in preparation for the snap, or to distract a batter in baseball, a golfer in golf, or a shooter in pool or tennis. Of course it's to create distraction, but it doesn't seem much different from all the other ways you'd try to distract an opponent.

It's be different if it were feigning injury.

He was feigning mental injury.

[bigjohn]

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.


I still say this play falls under 9-9-1 and is a USC!!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

He was feigning mental injury.

His coach wasn't feigning, though.