Hide Out Play in MHSAA Championship Game

[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

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by maven

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

[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?

[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.

[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.

[HLin NC]

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.

[maven]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

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.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by maven

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?

[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!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ddn

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.