The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football

Reply
 
LinkBack (1) Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 02, 2013, 02:34pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman View Post
And if that were the only applicable rules provision, so would everybody else. But there's a more general provision against use of a pretended substitution procedure...and what else can you call it when one of a bunch of players ostensibly subbing out together stops inches from the sideline and becomes the receiver?

This rule was adopted to allow for a more relaxed atmosphere during substitutions, knowing that departing players often slow down near their bench, so that teams with bench areas on opposite sidelines don't have to watch the opposite one like a hawk, and can plan their substitution more strategically, and neither do the officials. When hideout plays like this were legal, it was possible to gain an advantage even against a defense that knew it was a possibility. Cornerbacks would have to keep count of the entire offense rather than being able to play strategically.
Understanding the premise of the rule, which I absolutely agree with. The receiver was near the sideline by himself for almost 5 seconds before the snap occurred (1:41:00-1:41:05). Therefore, I don't know if I can justify using 9-6-4 since it states it's illegal to "pretend substitution to deceive opponents at or immediately before the snap"

Thanks for your thoughts

-Josh
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 02, 2013, 02:36pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by maven View Post
This play is properly penalized as illegal participation, 15 yards from the previous spot. The following case play is similar (the free kick is irrelevant to the ruling).

9.6.4 SITUATION B: Following a kickoff return, A1 and A2 enter the field while A3, A4 and A5 move toward the sideline. A5 stops within the 9-yard marks while A3 and A4 continue to the team box. The ball is snapped without a huddle and the quarterback throws a forward pass to A5, who has gone downfield as a wide receiver.

RULING: This play is illegal because a pretended substitution is used to deceive the opponents. The penalty of 15 yards for the illegal participation foul will be administered from the previous spot since the foul occurred at the snap. (9-6-4c)
I can't really argue with the case play though.

-Josh
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 02, 2013, 02:38pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdmara View Post
Understanding the premise of the rule, which I absolutely agree with. The receiver was near the sideline by himself for almost 5 seconds before the snap occurred (1:41:00-1:41:05). Therefore, I don't know if I can justify using 9-6-4 since it states it's illegal to "pretend substitution to deceive opponents at or immediately before the snap"

Thanks for your thoughts

-Josh
Were they still deceived immediately before the snap?
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 02, 2013, 03:01pm
Medium Kahuna
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: At home
Posts: 791
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdmara View Post
I don't know if I can justify using 9-6-4 since it states it's illegal to "pretend substitution to deceive opponents at or immediately before the snap"

-Josh
I recommend interpreting "immediately" here to mean "between the substitution and the snap." That way, it's clear that the case play and the rule fit neatly together.
__________________
Never trust an atom: they make up everything.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 02, 2013, 03:03pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
Were they still deceived immediately before the snap?
There was an unaccounted for player by the defense due to the previous pretend substitution by the offense.

I don't have a leg to stand on with the case play presented above.

-Josh

Last edited by jdmara; Mon Dec 02, 2013 at 03:15pm.
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 02, 2013, 05:54pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,593
The really sad part of all this, is that the coach, boasting about how carefully he has his team practice this obviously deliberate deception, is acknowledging he has no clue about sportsmanship or the existing rules specifically designed to prevent what he is teaching.

Improperly deceiving your opponents in this fashion is, by rule, considered CHEATING, and cheating is cheating even when you get away with it.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 02, 2013, 06:01pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmc View Post
The really sad part of all this, is that the coach, boasting about how carefully he has his team practice this obviously deliberate deception, is acknowledging he has no clue about sportsmanship or the existing rules specifically designed to prevent what he is teaching.

Improperly deceiving your opponents in this fashion is, by rule, considered CHEATING, and cheating is cheating even when you get away with it.
The worst part for me is all the officials claiming this is legal.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 02, 2013, 06:05pm
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam View Post
the worst part for me is all the officials claiming this is legal.
+1
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 02, 2013, 07:27pm
ddn ddn is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: WI/MI
Posts: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
The worst part for me is all the officials claiming this is legal.
Note that it is the coach who is claiming the officials allowed it and we have no way to know what exactly was described to the officials.

Unless you are talking about all the officials claiming that this play is legal and does not fall under 9-6-4d. Apparently, one state's rules interpreter says this play is legal.

9-6-4d
ART. 4 . . . It is illegal participation:
d. To use a player, replaced player, substitute, coach, athletic trainer or other attendant in a substitution or pretended substitution to deceive opponents at or immediately before the snap or free kick.

Last edited by ddn; Mon Dec 02, 2013 at 07:33pm.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 02, 2013, 09:23pm
Chain of Fools
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,647
Looking at the case play, I am wondering why it mentions that A5 "stops within the nine yard marks" yet declares it illegal.

In my communication today with our state supervisor, my take on why he deemed this play was legal was because the player was inside the 9 yard marks after the RFP. The case play would seem to go against the ruling.

This is the kind of stuff that the NF needs to look at in the off-season- take this particular play and tell us if it is legal or illegal and why. However, I won't hold my breath- they don't run their web site anymore and what they've farmed out to The Arbiter is feel good/self-help articles.

Guess I'll wait for the state clinic next July.
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 02, 2013, 10:18pm
Medium Kahuna
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: At home
Posts: 791
Quote:
Originally Posted by HLin NC View Post
Looking at the case play, I am wondering why it mentions that A5 "stops within the nine yard marks" yet declares it illegal.

In my communication today with our state supervisor, my take on why he deemed this play was legal was because the player was inside the 9 yard marks after the RFP. The case play would seem to go against the ruling.
It sounds to me as if he misinterpreted the phrase "stops within the nine yard marks." If the player is inside the numbers after the RFP, then he cannot be guilty of a formation foul for violating 7-2-1. I'm guessing that's why your interpreter said the play is legal.

But the point of "stops within the nine yard marks" is that this player remains in the field of play. He is thus not guilty of illegal substitution for violating 3-7-3 for leaving the field and returning. That's why the phrase is in the case play: we want to flag IP based on 9-6-4d and penalize 15 yds, not IS and penalize 5 yds.
__________________
Never trust an atom: they make up everything.
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 02, 2013, 10:30pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 766
Quote:
Originally Posted by maven View Post
It sounds to me as if he misinterpreted the phrase "stops within the nine yard marks." If the player is inside the numbers after the RFP, then he cannot be guilty of a formation foul for violating 7-2-1. I'm guessing that's why your interpreter said the play is legal.

But the point of "stops within the nine yard marks" is that this player remains in the field of play. He is thus not guilty of illegal substitution for violating 3-7-3 for leaving the field and returning. That's why the phrase is in the case play: we want to flag IP based on 9-6-4d and penalize 15 yds, not IS and penalize 5 yds.
Lurking as a baseball guy ( slow this time of year) how do the other codes rule on this?
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 02, 2013, 11:45pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmc View Post
The really sad part of all this, is that the coach, boasting about how carefully he has his team practice this obviously deliberate deception, is acknowledging he has no clue about sportsmanship or the existing rules specifically designed to prevent what he is teaching.

Improperly deceiving your opponents in this fashion is, by rule, considered CHEATING, and cheating is cheating even when you get away with it.
I don't blame the coach. He cleared it with the officials before the game, so he thought he was playing legally, not cheating. If you can't rely on the word of the people who are going to officiate your game, who can you rely on?
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old Tue Dec 03, 2013, 07:02am
CT1 CT1 is offline
Official & ***** Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman View Post
I don't blame the coach. He cleared it with the officials before the game, so he thought he was playing legally, not cheating. If you can't rely on the word of the people who are going to officiate your game, who can you rely on?
The Shadow!
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old Tue Dec 03, 2013, 08:49am
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddn View Post
Note that it is the coach who is claiming the officials allowed it and we have no way to know what exactly was described to the officials.

Unless you are talking about all the officials claiming that this play is legal and does not fall under 9-6-4d. Apparently, one state's rules interpreter says this play is legal.
I really don't care how he described it to the officials; the way they executed the play is clearly against the rules.

I was actually talking about officials who have watched the video and claim it's legal. For some reason, they're getting hung up on the 9s, which are irrelevant here.

I'm also not talking about officials who may not have known this rule; but those who continue to call it legal even after being shown 9-6-4d and its coinciding case play.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


LinkBacks (?)
LinkBack to this Thread: https://forum.officiating.com/football/96655-hide-out-play-mhsaa-championship-game.html
Posted By For Type Date
CrazyFootball | Hide Out Play in MHSAA Championship Game - The Official Forum 4th down from about B's 40. A runs off a bunch of players and a bunch come in on the... This thread Refback Mon Dec 09, 2013 03:04pm

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
MHSAA Trick Question ? U52 Football 9 Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:57am
Michigan MHSAA Rules Test Freddy Basketball 2 Sat Nov 14, 2009 10:55pm
I can run but I can't hide Mark Padgett Basketball 5 Fri Dec 07, 2007 08:04am
Time to run and hide? TexBlue Softball 34 Mon Mar 22, 2004 01:50pm
definition of "Championship Play" Tap Softball 10 Tue Aug 06, 2002 09:15am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:03am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1