Hide Out Play in MHSAA Championship Game
 

4th down from about B's 40. A runs off a bunch of players and a bunch come in on the HL's side. A44 stops just short of going off the field and stays on the field. The HL is a step or two on the field and the A44 is behind him. A lines up in a field goal try formation, they snap to the "kicker" and he throws to an uncovered A44 for the TD.

According to A's coach, they had asked the officials about it and they allowed it.

Here's an article on it. Hopefully there will be video.

Trick play changes momentum in West Catholic's Division 5 championship - MLive.com

No video but using a substitution or pretended substitution to deceive is illegal. From your description, the player was not inside the numbers at some point between the RFP and snap so there is illegal formation. If the wing allowed a player to get behind him, that is on him. NF mechanics were changed a few years back to start on the sideline and the move in if necessary.

Every time stuff like this is allowed to happen, it just legitimizes this type of play in others' minds. It's just too bad, really.

Especially when it happens in a championship game.

Found the video: MHSAA - Streaming live high school sporting events from NFHS Network

Go to 1:40:00 in.

HL was just a step on field, you can just see the A player's legs at the 33 yard line.

https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/...46409234_n.jpg

Actually it starts at 1:41:35. I note the wing had been standing in the white on prior plays.

On the previous play, the whole right o-line was off.

I am going to try and download that clip for future training purposes. One of our area schools won a state championship back in '05 pulling a similar stunt.

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)

TV news clip- receiver lined up out of the frame, starts at about :43 in.

<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="//www.youtube.com/v/VGIyIKBgZgA?hl=en_US&amp;version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="//www.youtube.com/v/VGIyIKBgZgA?hl=en_US&amp;version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

Illegal/legal Fake FG
 

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.

-Josh

It's a "pretend substitution", IMO. Illegal participation. 15 yards, touchdown does not stand.

Are you an official, or a fan?

If a fan... ok - just be advised this is illegal.

If an official ... there's a rule that specifically addresses using fake substitutions to hide players like this one.

Blatantly illegal - as if the play was filmed for training purposes to illustrate the rule.

Someone posted this case play on FB, but I don't have my books to verify:

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)

Isn't that the same play being discussed here?

http://forum.officiating.com/footbal...ship-game.html

As I posted in that thread, it is illegal participation at the snap, 15 yards, replay the down.

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.

Yes, I didn't see that post...opps

-Josh

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

I can't really argue with the case play though.

-Josh

Were they still deceived immediately before the snap?

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.

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

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.

+1

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.

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.

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?

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!

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.

Illegal in NCAA, penalized as UNS:

9-2-2-b
"No simulated replacements or substitutions may be used to confuse opponents. No tactic associated with substitutes or the substitution process may be used to confuse opponents (Rule 3-5-2-e) (A.R. 9-2-2-I-V)."

Illegal in NFL, penalized as UNS:

5-2-11
"Using entering substitutes, legally returning players, substitutes on sidelines, or withdrawn players to confuse opponents, or lingering by players leaving the field when being replaced by a substitute, is unsportsmanlike conduct. See 12-3-1-k. "

The hideout play is illegal in football and should never be permitted by any officiating crew at any level. Period.

How could any crew blow this one??
 

Video: Grand Rapids West Catholic's fake field goal touchdown, called 'Lou Lou' - MaxWire National Blog - MaxPreps


"It's a play we practice; I went over it with the officials before the game," Rohn told reporters. "I explained we'd be running it if we got the opportunity. It's a play we believe in. ... My mom passed away 25 years ago. ... We nicknamed that play after her and the kids executed it perfectly."

You're a bit late to the party. :)

Why aren't these plays penalized as USC on the coach?? They should be!!

Classic sleeper play in Canada. Not legal.

They're illegal participation. 9-6-4d IIRC

Welcome bigjohn! Drop the turkey leg and slowly back away.:rolleyes:

He explained it to them before the game and they OK'd it! That is really sad that there are officials doing State finals with that kind of Rules knowledge.

This serves as a warning, brain farts are an always lurking hidden threat to all of us, regardless of how keen we believe our "Rules knowledge" may be.

Also, many coaches fails to describe the play before hand in a way that is accurate. They say one thing and the kids do something different. While all of us here agree this play should have been flagged, it doesn't necessarily mean that the coach described it exactly as it occurred.

That's entirely possible, but doesn't address the fact that the play was left to stand after it was played out on the field.

1. I can't imagine how he could have described this in a way that didn't lead them to believe he was trying a hideout play of some sort.

2. The fact that the coach thinks of this as a trick play is proof that his intent was to use the substitution process to deceive the opponent into leaving a receiver wide open.

3. How it was explained is often different from how it's executed. We don't rule based on how it was explained; we rule on how it's executed. Plus, my first point above.

Where's the tee is USC. This play should be as well, just like 9-9-1


9.9.1 SITUATION B: From a field goal formation, potential kicker A1 yells, “Where’s the tee?” A2 replies, “I’ll go get it” and goes legally in motion toward his team’s sideline. Ball is snapped to A1 who throws a touchdown pass to A2. RULING: Unsportsmanlike conduct prior to snap. The ball should be declared dead and the foul enforced as a dead-ball foul. COMMENT: Football has been and always will be a game of deception and trickery involving multiple shifts, unusu- al formations and creative plays. However, actions or verbiage designed to con- fuse the defense into believing there is problem and a snap isn’t imminent is beyond the scope of sportsmanship and is illegal.

Who flags this play? At what point?

Couldn't this be more easily avoided by making a rule limiting substitutions (to only one or two players, e.g.,) after the ball is RFP?

There's a far more applicable rule:

And case play:

View from other side of the field.

Trick play to win state title in Michigan (West Catholic) - YouTube

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/yejxSA-8i14" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I know it is IP but it should also count as a USC vs the head coach, if it is second one, bye bye! It is unethical to try to break the rules to score.

I don't think the add'l angle added anything we didn't already know, but thanks anyway. It's clear enough to me the officials saw exactly what went on and ruled it legal.

Which doesn't make it legal, of course.

No, it just means you can't trust the officials even in a varsity championship final of a football-crazy state like Mich.

Most of all, I think it shows that MHSAA way of selecting tournament officials is in need of further review. Especially when you look at all eight MHSAA championship games and the level of officiating.