Illegal?
 

NCAA Rules.

We all know that the offense can't do anything to make the defense think the snap is not imminent, and then snap the ball.

But what about the kicking team.

The Most Amazing Unsuccessful Onside Kick Ever - Video - ESPN

(My browser won't let me embed)

NCAA, I think I'd flag this as UNS and let the play roll.

Just another variation of the "barking dog" play. Patently illegal.

I see the similarity too, that's why I posted it.

But there is no offense, and there is no snap. By what rule do we call this illegal?

This is no different that the basketball video of the player throwing her shoe at a try. It's not specified in the book, but it's most certainly is Unsporting Conduct.

Easy Flag, easier explanation.

Anyone know what "throwing her eat a try" means?

..."throwing her SHOe at a try..."

It means don't try to type on a laptop with a bagel in one hand and a cup of coffee in the other

I'm not sure about this one. AFAIK nobody's called it UC when the kicking team huddles near the ball, some players come out of the huddle walking toward their goal line, and others kick and cover the ball. The object's the same, the only difference here being the element of falling down as a way to have the kicking team near the ball.

Would it be unsportsmanlike for a receiver in the middle of a pass route to deliberately fall to the ground? If not to fall to the ground, how about to stop and scratch a pretended itch?

Now this one I think is easier to call an unfair act, since they not only led the other team to think that a snap/kick was not imminent but ALSO very clearly acted like there was a problem. Not to open up the debate from the other thread of whether both conditions are necessary or that's being too legalistic - no need to worry since both conditions are present here.

But, what's the remedy? The R has authority to impose such penalties as he/she deems necessary to nullify the unfair act. If K recovers, easy call - R gets the ball. But what's to fix here? Unless you nail them for UNS, seems like any penalty is moot.

The remedy is to shut the play down and assess the 15 yard penalty.

They won't do it again. (for this game at least)

This fake trip is outside the realm of accepted deception.

No, it would however, be incredibly assinine.

see above

How do you know? How many times have you seen it attempted, and how many times flagged? So far we have only one data point: one attempt, no flag. So I don't see how you concluded that type of deception was outside the realm of what's accepted, because what little evidence we have says it is accepted.

Usually this sort of thing requires a definitive rule or ruling in order to be illegal. That's how it was, for instance, with feigning injury. It was legal because nobody said it was illegal until one day they did.

There are forms of football deception that one's intuition may say should be illegal but to my knowledge aren't. One is to disguise the identity of players by switching uniforms during a game; AFAIK that's legal if neither of them are disqualified, but it strikes me as contrary to the original intent of having the players have to wear numbered uniforms.

But that is what we've come to expect.:rolleyes:

Wrong. I don't need an addendum to the unsporting conduct rule for every hair-brained, bush league, juvenile tactic that some coach comes us with.


It was "legal" because the rules committee didn't foresee some coach using this as a way to teach his young men how to win.

.

The only acceptable reason for a player to change uniform numbers during a game is because that particular jersey no longer meets the requirements set by rule. If that happens, the team should have the integrity to notify their opponents of the change. If that doesn't happen the officials should have the guts to penalize this tactic.

It's sad to see that there are more and more out there that have no problem looking at themselves in the mirror every day after employing these tactics.

Just as sad is the fact that there are folks willing to justify their actions.