Hide Out Play in MHSAA Championship Game

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by jdmara

I had a friend from Michigan run this play by me this morning. Curious what you all have on this play

MIHideOutPlay from Charles Allison on Vimeo

I have nuttin'. The player in question appears to be within the numbers at the RFP, never leaves the field, and (I'll assume) we was set at the snap. If he left the field and/or entered the field just prior to the snap, then I have an issue.

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.

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by jdmara

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?

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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

[ajmc]

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by adam

the worst part for me is all the officials claiming this is legal.

+1

[ddn]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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?

[CT1]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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!

[maven]

Originally Posted by jdmara

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.