Fake PAT
 

Any thoughts on this? I know it offends my sensibilities...

<iframe src="//player.vimeo.com/video/78115018?title=0&amp;byline=0&amp;portrait=0&amp;c olor=ffffff" width="925" height="520" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen allowfullscreen></iframe>

Yeah, the R is about five yards too close to the goal line.

Ah, the old barking dog...

He's also on the wrong side of the kicker. But I think that's because the monkey didn't know which side of the kicker to line up on.

I'm thinking that our state supervisor of officials would NOT like this play and expect us to shut it down.

Yeah, instead of throwing it to #41 who was WIDE OPEN on the right side, he threw it into triple coverage to #35 who was behind 14 bodies crashing together.

And who let Air Bud on the field?

Shut it down & retry from the 18. No different than if the "holder" had started doing back flips across the field.

Hopefully A's coach would have told us about this in the pre-game so we could nix it then.

Virtually the same as where's the tee, isn't it?

Why didn't the QB throw to the wide open guy? Must have not trusted him to catch it!

Why

Somebody please tag that video with the word 'travesty'.

When somebody posts a trick play, we all say, "no, the hidden ball trick/sleeper play/player lying down, etc. are illegal but do not make the game a travesty."

The barking dog/jumping monkey play make the game a travesty. And, to be perfectly precise, it's illegal if it tends to make the game a travesty. 9-9-5

Thank You!

I have 15 yards. Re-try.

Ed Zackary!
That is pretty much what TRAVESTY means!

I Can't Believe They Let That Go
 

It's unbelievable that a crew would even let this get any further along than the first few seconds of this nut crawling towards the sideline.

They really need to spend some time in clinics and on this forum.

Were these guys sound asleep?

Might not have been the strangest play of the night. :shrug:

Any Oregon guys on the board? This happened at Sherwood HS outside of Portland. Would love to hear thoughts of any of our Oregon brethren on here as to why it wasn't shut down.

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.

Failure to wear required equipment. ;)

http://images.codingforcharity.org/d...225307_reg.png

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

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?

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, you sometimes bring up some insightful points.

Then there's this.

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?

Hence the wonderful Ignore function on the control panel.

He was feigning mental injury.

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!!

His coach wasn't feigning, though.

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

And I suppose you never resorted to tickling in the "Whose ball?" drill. Or in wrestling, for that matter?