"Sleeper" Play

tjones1 · #1 (**permalink**) Wed Oct 23, 2013, 11:40am

maven · #2 (**permalink**) Wed Oct 23, 2013, 12:10pm

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."

Adam · #3 (**permalink**) Wed Oct 23, 2013, 12:24pm

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.

scrounge · #4 (**permalink**) Wed Oct 23, 2013, 12:47pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by maven

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."

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.

maven · #5 (**permalink**) Wed Oct 23, 2013, 01:06pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by scrounge

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.

bigjohn · #6 (**permalink**) Fri Oct 25, 2013, 01:20pm

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?

Adam · #7 (**permalink**) Fri Oct 25, 2013, 01:31pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigjohn

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:

Quote:

Originally Posted by maven

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."

bigjohn · #8 (**permalink**) Fri Oct 25, 2013, 01:36pm

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

maven · #9 (**permalink**) Fri Oct 25, 2013, 01:58pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigjohn

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.

JRutledge · #10 (**permalink**) Fri Oct 25, 2013, 01:59pm

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

MD Longhorn · #11 (**permalink**) Fri Oct 25, 2013, 02:03pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigjohn

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

Quote:

actions or verbiage

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.

MD Longhorn · #12 (**permalink**) Fri Oct 25, 2013, 02:04pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

"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.

JRutledge · #13 (**permalink**) Fri Oct 25, 2013, 02:26pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

"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

tjones1 · #14 (**permalink**) Fri Oct 25, 2013, 02:36pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

JRutledge · #15 (**permalink**) Fri Oct 25, 2013, 02:46pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by tjones1

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

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: https://forum.officiating.com/football/96367-sleeper-play.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
Anyone gonna try this one? \| CoachHuey.com	This thread	Refback	Sat Oct 26, 2013 03:12pm

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
NHSF "intentional" vs NCAA "flagarent" terminology	Duffman	Basketball	17	Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:15pm
Is "the patient whistle" and "possession consequence" ruining the game?	fiasco	Basketball	46	Fri Dec 02, 2011 08:43am
ABC's "Nightline" examines "worst calls ever" tonight	pizanno	Basketball	27	Fri Jul 04, 2008 06:08am
"serious" foul by offended team during their advantage play	Robert Goodman	Rugby	4	Tue Aug 07, 2007 12:21pm