Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
1
National Federation Discussion / illegal substitution or not
« Last post by CalhounLJ on Yesterday at 10:05:11 PM »
The rule reference and both casebook plays indicate this is IP and not USC .


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
2
NCAA Discussion / Re: Play 6 - 2017 Video Review 3
« Last post by Rulesman on Yesterday at 09:03:39 PM »
Bill is at a game as rules expert somewhere most every week.
3
National Federation Discussion / Re: illegal substitution or not
« Last post by Rulesman on Yesterday at 08:59:28 PM »
Sounds very fishy. Legal by the black and white of the rule book for rules 3 and 7, but using the substitution process to deceive is a no-no. I think our officiating judgement makes this a UNS.
Not legal by any means. Don't even try to convince yourself otherwise. This is clearly UNS and it is charged to A12. One more and he's done for the night. It's covered in Rule 9-6-4d. Also see Case Book plays  9.6.4 SITUATION A and 9-6-4 SITUATION B.

Note this foul is not mentioned in Rule 9-10 in the 2017 Rule Book as 9-10 excludes the UNS counting as one for DQ.
4
National Federation Discussion / Re: illegal substitution or not
« Last post by CalhounLJ on Yesterday at 07:25:26 PM »
Directly from the NFHS memo issued last season:

The NFHS Football Rules Book specifically prohibits unfair acts. Rule 9-10 lists some examples of unfair acts, including hiding the football under a jersey or using an illegal kicking tee. Other unfair acts are prohibited by the spirit and intent of other rules, include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Uniforms which do not conform to specified standards or which have a foreign substance on them;
2. Use of disconcerting acts or words prior to the snap in an attempt to interfere with the offensive team’s signals or movements; and
3. “Hide-Out” plays, including those that use a substitution or pretended substitution in order to deceive opponents at or immediately before the snap or free kick.

I'm not  sure which specific rule reference I would use but per NFHS directions "Hide-Out" plays fall under unfair acts which are 15 yard USC penalties.

I agree unfair acts which have no specific rules coverages are USC fouls. This is clear from the first sentence of the memo: Rule 9-10 states that a player or non-player or person(s) not subject to the rules shall not hinder
play by an unfair act that has no specific rule coverage.


However, since this situation has specific rules coverage, (9-6-4d), then IMO, we apply IP penalty, which is 15 yds. A couple of those flags and he gets the message.

This statement in the memo seems to imply the authority to do that: If an unfair-act foul
occurs and the foul already has a penalty associated with it, the referee may invoke another
equitable penalty if the foul is so unfair that its normal penalty would be insufficient.

The way I read this sentence, if the foul already has a penalty associated with it that is sufficient, then we don't necessarily have to tack on another foul, or even escalate it to USC.
5
National Federation Discussion / Re: illegal substitution or not
« Last post by Magician on Yesterday at 04:10:22 PM »
If he came inside the numbers and was a slot receiver, I have a hard time considering him "hiding out". If you have anything here it would be IP per 9-6-4d, using a substitution at or immediately before the free kick. But if you have a player leaving and another playing getting into the formation inside the numbers, I don't see how you do that.
6
National Federation Discussion / Re: illegal substitution or not
« Last post by NVFOA_Ump on Yesterday at 03:52:27 PM »
Directly from the NFHS memo issued last season:

The NFHS Football Rules Book specifically prohibits unfair acts. Rule 9-10 lists some examples of unfair acts, including hiding the football under a jersey or using an illegal kicking tee. Other unfair acts are prohibited by the spirit and intent of other rules, include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Uniforms which do not conform to specified standards or which have a foreign substance on them;
2. Use of disconcerting acts or words prior to the snap in an attempt to interfere with the offensive team’s signals or movements; and
3. “Hide-Out” plays, including those that use a substitution or pretended substitution in order to deceive opponents at or immediately before the snap or free kick.

I'm not  sure which specific rule reference I would use but per NFHS directions "Hide-Out" plays fall under unfair acts which are 15 yard USC penalties.
7
National Federation Discussion / Re: illegal substitution or not
« Last post by sir55 on Yesterday at 03:48:08 PM »
I agree with Calhoun. Case Book play 7.3.5 A seems to cover this situation. If you think they are doing this to deceive the defense, it is illegal participation.
8
National Federation Discussion / Re: illegal substitution or not
« Last post by CalhounLJ on Yesterday at 03:34:29 PM »
9-9 is failure to wear required equipment.
9-10 is unfair acts, and doesn't cover this, unless you are trying to say the substitution is making a travesty of the game.
9-6-4d would be the proper rule reference if you want to put a stop to this.
9
National Federation Discussion / Re: illegal substitution or not
« Last post by NVFOA_Ump on Yesterday at 03:18:28 PM »
I'd agree with ChicagoZebra here. IMHO the 1st time this happens we make a mental note of what we saw.  The 2nd time we advise the coach that intentionally using the substitution process to deceive is considered a 15 yard USC under 9-10 Unfair Acts and the next time we see the late "swap" we'll be flagging it.  Clearly from the description here, it's a designed play to "hide-out" an eligible receiver using the "legal" substitution process. That's illegal.

The NFHS football rules committee fairly regularly stresses the "hide-out" play situation(s) and the latest official communication that I have was just prior to the 2016 season.  See the unfair acts section on page 3 of the attachment. 
10
National Federation Discussion / Re: illegal substitution or not
« Last post by ChicagoZebra on Yesterday at 02:45:49 PM »
Sounds very fishy. Legal by the black and white of the rule book for rules 3 and 7, but using the substitution process to deceive is a no-no. I think our officiating judgement makes this a UNS.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10