Is this legal in NFHS???

[Grant - AR]

Taking the injury out of the equation, we have specific rules coverage for this situation. You suggested as much in your proposed solution. “UNS for using the substitution process to deceive.”  The only problem with  your solution is that’s not the penalty for using the substitution process to deceive. The proper penalty is IP. While some may feel a UNS to be warranted, we can’t make one up just because we don’t like the action.   We can’t just hit the coach with an unsportsmanlike conduct foul whenever we want.

My mistake there.  I made the assumption a UNS was the penalty. 

[CalhounLJ]

This is another example PROVING, "One size NEVER fits all".  As suggested, there are multiple bullets to fire available.  The covering official decides which bullet to shoot, based on what is SEEN, what is BELIEVED to be the case in this ONE, UNIQUE situation in this ONE, UNIQUE game. 

If the conclusion is someone (player/coach) made a dumb MISTAKE and simply did/allowed something prohibited by rule, IP might well be the chosen bullet fired.  If, however the official's conclusion (in this unique case) was a deliberate intent to deceive, that may require a different bullet.  The choice of which bullet to fire rests with the calling official (EXCLUSIVELY).  Keep in mind, however the R is empowered to review and, RARELY, WHEN NECESSARY, modify that decision.

As for a coach, who has already been cited for UNS.  Big mistake he can ponder on his way OFF the field, knowing his behavior will be a major portion of the game report, he will likely have to answer for. The two most important factors officials are designed to protect are Player Safety & Sportsmanship, and the rules are designed to promote BOTH.

I agree with everything you said there Al. But I don’t see the judgment between a mistake and/or a deliberate intentional act mentioned in the rules. In fact, the wording of 9-6-4d suggests and intentional act as opposed to a mistake.

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.

Seems like hat would have to be a deliberate intentional act to deceive. From which the foul is IP.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ralph Damren]

When Case 9.9.1 was written, the major concern was a rash of trick plays that many considered unsportsmanlike. While 9-6-4d could be applied, it was felt that a stronger message that these types of plays would not be allowed in football with an UNC. Stopping it in it's tracks was the best solution, as an USC during a live ball would provide succeeding spot enforcement. In the OP it is obvious that the play is orchestrated as the 'replaced' player appears to be in pain until he reaches a few inches from the sidelines. I assume his 'replacement' must be the 10th player, as they may have set this up by running the previous play with only 10.
The coaches quickly change to cheerleaders as his quick recovery allows him to recover for an easy touchdown pass.

Case 9.9.1 was written to provide blanket coverage for plays such as this and if we had listed 100 variations , some creative coach would could come up with #101. If I was a coach, a couple I might try ...

(1) QB, under snapper, steps back and hold his nose : "Whew, the center just 'cut one'. Give me a second to git ma' breath    !"
     Ball snapped directly to tail back .

(2) QB, from shotgun, points toward B's end zone and yells :" WOW, the prom queen's clothes just fell off ..."
    Baa snapped to tail back  .

I don't think I wanta' be a coach  .

For those that choose 9-6-4d in lieu of USC, that would be good. I just feel that holding the head coach accountable may silence other coaches that are also dreaming up such and shutting the play down before it makes the 'highlight reel' will remove any glory from an unsportsmanlike act. It's easier for us to make the call after seeing the video over..over...and over .
 

[AlUpstateNY]

I agree with everything you said there Al. But I don’t see the judgment between a mistake and/or a deliberate intentional act mentioned in the rules. In fact, the wording of 9-6-4d suggests and intentional act as opposed to a mistake.

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.

Seems like hat would have to be a deliberate intentional act to deceive. From which the foul is IP.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

JUDGING and DECIDING whether THIS UNIQUE INSTANCE was either a "deliberate intentional act" or unfortunate "MISTAKE" (confusion, impulse, ignorance of the rule, miscommunication between player-coach, teenage impulse, etc.) is what officials are paid the BIG BUCKS for.  There is NO AUTOMATIC, SINGLE answer, it's all about what is judged appropriate for THAT specific situation, a corrective penalty or a HAMMER by the covering official (subject to a possible "Appeals level" reversal by the Referee.) 

EVERY such situation is UNIQUE, and deserves a UNIQUE judgment based on that situation ALONE.

[CalhounLJ]

JUDGING and DECIDING whether THIS UNIQUE INSTANCE was either a "deliberate intentional act" or unfortunate "MISTAKE" (confusion, impulse, ignorance of the rule, miscommunication between player-coach, teenage impulse, etc.) is what officials are paid the BIG BUCKS for.  There is NO AUTOMATIC, SINGLE answer, it's all about what is judged appropriate for THAT specific situation, a corrective penalty or a HAMMER by the covering official (subject to a possible "Appeals level" reversal by the Referee.) 

EVERY such situation is UNIQUE, and deserves a UNIQUE judgment based on that situation ALONE.

Well, I tried.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[KWH]

Again, Faking an injury has no specific Rules Book coverage.
This then involves leads us to Rule 9-9-5
This ruling is supported 110% by CASEBOOK 9.9.1 SITUATION B
This is to be a UNS on the Head coach at the snap and the play should be shut down!

And, Ill go one step further! Ifwe discussed it in the pregame and he was told it would be penalized, and, he ran it anyway,
I will consider his actions a FLAGRANT ACT and he will receive a lovely parting gift.

This is bullsh*t football, there is no place for it in NFHS play, and it shall be penalized accordingly.
I understand why and where you are hanging your hat, Calhoun, but this is, and always will be, a UNS ACT!

[CalhounLJ]

Please explain how this supports either faking an injury, or using the substitution process to deceive opponents.

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, unusual formations and creative plays. However, actions or verbiage designed to confuse the defense into believing there is problem and a snap isn't imminent is beyond the scope of sportsmanship and is illegal.

I will say this case perfectly describes the types of situations that have no rules coverage. But in the video, the player holding his hand is a very minuscule piece of the puzzle. The fact is that A pretended to substitute for him and deceived the defense by using the substitution process. It’s IP all the way.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CalhounLJ]

While I certainly appreciate the history behind the rules, there is no way any official not privy to that history would ever come up with UNS if they were on the field officiating this play. If you guys want it officiated as UNS, you need to write it down in the rule book because we can’t go by unwritten tradition and intent.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[KWH]

While I certainly appreciate the history behind the rules, there is no way any official not privy to that history would ever come up with UNS if they were on the field officiating this play. If you guys want it officiated as UNS, you need to write it down in the rule book because we can’t go by unwritten tradition and intent.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Ask and Answered,
Foul is: UNS to Head Coach
Penalty is: 15 yards - Previous Spot
Applicable written Rule is: 9-9-5;
Applicable written Casebook Play is:  9.9.1 Situation B

[AlUpstateNY]

Ask and Answered,
Foul is: UNS to Head Coach
Penalty is: 15 yards - Previous Spot
Applicable written Rule is: 9-9-5;
Applicable written Casebook Play is:  9.9.1 Situation B

There are a lot of different reasons IP can happen, most (if not all) involve various misinterpretations of the rule or mental errors occurring in the "heat of battle".  The play/video in question (which may have been from before the rules were changed/expanded to SPECIFICALL PROHIBIT behavior designed to "cheat" an opponent) is a direct contradiction to the idea/notion of honest competition & "sportsmanship". 

It's extremely difficult to consider this play happened without the knowledge & blessing of the HC, and the behavior this kind of intent encourages sets the consequences earned above that of "honest mistake" and should be recognized as such, so that the HC understands he is halfway to disqualification (which in most instances opens a door to possible post game sanctions) and underscores a bright line of UNACCEPTABLE behavior & example.

If there is legitimate doubt as to whether this action was a deliberate attempt to ignore sportsmanship responsibilities, IP may well be an applicable alternative,but even then, a stern reminder of those responsibilities, and additional consequences of such behavior would/should be DELIVERED.

The CHOICE of appropriate penalty is decided by the covering official, subject to possible review by the Referee, but that decision is relevant to the ongoing INTEGRITY OF THE GAME BEING PLAYED. Tolerance of UNETHICAL behavior by NFHS level players may be a consequence of inexperience, or personal development, but does not extend itself to adult supervision.

[HLinNC]

Yelling doesn't change the fact that there is specific rules coverage for an act of using the substitution process to deceive.

If one wants to call it USC, its on them.  If one wants the rep of being an "MSU alum", have at it.

[CalhounLJ]

Ask and Answered,
Foul is: UNS to Head Coach
Penalty is: 15 yards - Previous Spot
Applicable written Rule is: 9-9-5;
Applicable written Casebook Play is:  9.9.1 Situation B

So you’re using a caseplay relating to 9-9-1 to prove application of rule 9-9-5?

Please explain how any official outside this forum is even going to know the history behind 9-9-1 to be able to make the connection to USC. Especially when a plain viewing of the video clearly reveals a pretended substitution.

If y’all gonna make such a jump and intend for it to be official, you need to put it in writing.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CalhounLJ]

There are a lot of different reasons IP can happen, most (if not all) involve various misinterpretations of the rule or mental errors occurring in the "heat of battle".  The play/video in question (which may have been from before the rules were changed/expanded to SPECIFICALL PROHIBIT behavior designed to "cheat" an opponent) is a direct contradiction to the idea/notion of honest competition & "sportsmanship". 

It's extremely difficult to consider this play happened without the knowledge & blessing of the HC, and the behavior this kind of intent encourages sets the consequences earned above that of "honest mistake" and should be recognized as such, so that the HC understands he is halfway to disqualification (which in most instances opens a door to possible post game sanctions) and underscores a bright line of UNACCEPTABLE behavior & example.

If there is legitimate doubt as to whether this action was a deliberate attempt to ignore sportsmanship responsibilities, IP may well be an applicable alternative,but even then, a stern reminder of those responsibilities, and additional consequences of such behavior would/should be DELIVERED.

The CHOICE of appropriate penalty is decided by the covering official, subject to possible review by the Referee, but that decision is relevant to the ongoing INTEGRITY OF THE GAME BEING PLAYED. Tolerance of UNETHICAL behavior by NFHS level players may be a consequence of inexperience, or personal development, but does not extend itself to adult supervision.

If you will be open minded enough to investigate, you will discover that 9-6-4d clearly covers an intentional act, not a simple mistake. The comparison of a mistake versus an intentional act is a figment of your imagination you conjured up.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[bama_stripes]

Another reason to penalize this as a live-ball foul under 9-4-6d is to not deprive the defense of the opportunity for a sack or turnover.

[HLinNC]

Another reason to penalize this as a live-ball foul under 9-4-6d is to not deprive the defense of the opportunity for a sack or turnover.

And more importantly, especially for those who couldn't get this shut down, applying USC as a foul means you've got live ball treated as a dead ball so the score would count.   A hard core vet might be able to get this shut down at the snap but I'm willing to bet for the vast majority of officials, this play is getting off.

Unless you're going to really climb out on the limb with the "God clause" and wipe out the score, 9-6-4d enforcement is previous spot so bye-bye TD.

[CalhounLJ]

And more importantly, especially for those who couldn't get this shut down, applying USC as a foul means you've got live ball treated as a dead ball so the score would count.   A hard core vet might be able to get this shut down at the snap but I'm willing to bet for the vast majority of officials, this play is getting off.

Unless you're going to really climb out on the limb with the "God clause" and wipe out the score, 9-6-4d enforcement is previous spot so bye-bye TD.

Also, it would be extremely difficult to argue USC before the snap, because until the act is committed, there is no crime. The absolute worst case scenario would be to suspect this as a trick play, throw a flag before the snap only to discover the players finger bent back against the back of his hand. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ralph Damren]

We sometimes shut plays down after they have started, consider encroachment or free kick violations. Yes, you could apply 9-6-04d and treat it as a live ball foul. Applying Case 9.9.1b would accomplish two things : It would result in an USC on the coach and halfway to his car/bus/whatever; It would also stop the, "OH, what an exciting play...and those mean refs took it away  !". IMHO, the player that was pretending to be injured and heading for the sidelines crossed the IP/USC line while it might not cross yours. Remember, if you do choose to shut the play down, be sure a reset the clock by adding a few seconds. This will indicate what just happened really didn't.

And, yes, be sure you have a trick play before you shut it down.

[CalhounLJ]

Yea, I’m afraid the free kick infraction change sent us down a rabbit hole of no return. We may as well get rid of the “no foul causes the ball to become dead” fundamental.

I agree the play in question has no place in football. I disagree with simply inventing an enforcement to deal with it. If the powers that be want this shut down and called USC on the head coach, there needs to be official wording In the rule book to support it.  Not some guy on a message forum posting “asked and answered.”

I would also be very leery of adding fake injury to the language because of obvious liability and verification concerns.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[KWH]

 CalhounLJ -

I'm curious, are their any NFHS rules you actually support?

- Some guy on a message forum!

[CalhounLJ]

CalhounLJ -

I'm curious, are their any NFHS rules you actually support?

- Some guy on a message forum!

I actually support them all. It’s those invented I have a problem with.

The dig was out of line and I apologize, but the truth is, you just can’t dictate interpretations unsupported by the rules on a message board and expect them to carry weight.  Take this play for example. Suppose I buy into this proposed interpretation, go to my chapter and tell my guys this is the way it’s supposed to be called. When they push back, as is bound to happen, what official support would I have? Basically, all I can do is tell them, some guy in a message board said so.  As I told Ralph, I agree the play has no 0lace in football. The problem is the solution you’re proposing won’t work with the rules as written.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[AlUpstateNY]

If you will be open minded enough to investigate, you will discover that 9-6-4d clearly covers an intentional act, not a simple mistake. The comparison of a mistake versus an intentional act is a figment of your imagination you conjured up.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Openminded?  Do you mean, "there's only ONE way, and it automatically fits EVERY ONE of a bazillion possibilities?  I don't have my Officials Manual handy, but am very familiar, and have referenced it's advice before, that Officials must possess (and utilize) common sense, and understanding of the reason for a rule in applying judgment to fit the UNIQUE situation they are observing. 

In the situation being discussed, there are 2 VALID options to consider, (IP and/or USC) regarding this SPECIFIC & PARTICULAR occurrence, EACH of which specifically references BOTH behaviors. The covering official (subject to the concurrence (and possible overriding by the Referee) judges what he observes (in THIS situation) and renders a UNIQUE judgment, rather than the routine of "one size fits all".  That official is provided the luxury (and burden) of choosing the applicable foul.  Hopefully, THAT official's choice will best fit THAT situation.

You decide on your choice, I'll stick with mine.

[ElvisLives]

Knowing fully well that I will get admonished and told to keep my nose out things on the NFHS forum, I am going comment, anyway.

In the video example provided, how does "injury" become a factor, whatsoever? If we don't interrupt the game for an injury, then any pain/discomfort that a player may be suffering is of no consequence to us as officials. The player in question (wearing an eligible number) appeared to be trying to leave the field, under his own power, and, until the last moment, was moving to to leave the field in a reasonably direct and expeditious manner. While he is moving toward the sideline, a substitute (also wearing an eligible number) for that team runs onto the field from their sideline, 'apparently' to replace the player that appeared to be leaving the field. There was no reason to interrupt the game for the guy that appeared to be leaving the field - even if we had a player count for team A, and we know he is one of 11. For all we know, they will send in another sub for him when he gets off the field.
So, then, when this guy gets near the sideline, he stops - you hear coaches telling him to "stay right there" -  the ball gets snapped, and this guy, unopposed by an opponent, runs downfield to catch an apparent touchdown pass.
This is a deliberate use of a "hideout" play, and is patently unsportsmanlike conduct. Not anything for which we would interrupt the game for an "injury," fake or real. Live-ball foul, 15 yards from the previous spot, repeat the down.
As to whom to assign the foul, that may be different for NFHS than other rule sets. In NCAA, this gets assigned to the "hideout," player (as much as we might want to assign it to a coach). If I'm a player, and I already have one UNS, and my coach tells me to run that play, I'm gonna be p-----, uh, annoyed.
Cheating. Pure and simple.

[CalhounLJ]

Knowing fully well that I will get admonished and told to keep my nose out things on the NFHS forum, I am going comment, anyway.

In the video example provided, how does "injury" become a factor, whatsoever? If we don't interrupt the game for an injury, then any pain/discomfort that a player may be suffering is of no consequence to us as officials. The player in question (wearing an eligible number) appeared to be trying to leave the field, under his own power, and, until the last moment, was moving to to leave the field in a reasonably direct and expeditious manner. While he is moving toward the sideline, a substitute (also wearing an eligible number) for that team runs onto the field from their sideline, 'apparently' to replace the player that appeared to be leaving the field. There was no reason to interrupt the game for the guy that appeared to be leaving the field - even if we had a player count for team A, and we know he is one of 11. For all we know, they will send in another sub for him when he gets off the field.
So, then, when this guy gets near the sideline, he stops - you hear coaches telling him to "stay right there" -  the ball gets snapped, and this guy, unopposed by an opponent, runs downfield to catch an apparent touchdown pass.
This is a deliberate use of a "hideout" play, and is patently unsportsmanlike conduct. Not anything for which we would interrupt the game for an "injury," fake or real. Live-ball foul, 15 yards from the previous spot, repeat the down.
As to whom to assign the foul, that may be different for NFHS than other rule sets. In NCAA, this gets assigned to the "hideout," player (as much as we might want to assign it to a coach). If I'm a player, and I already have one UNS, and my coach tells me to run that play, I'm gonna be p-----, uh, annoyed.
Cheating. Pure and simple.

Fair assessment. Only difference is the penalty for the two codes. In NFHS this is BY RULE Illegal Participation.
Using the substitution or pretended substitution to deceive the defense. 15yd penalty from the previous spot replay the down.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[AlUpstateNY]

Fair assessment. Only difference is the penalty for the two codes. In NFHS this is BY RULE Illegal Participation.
Using the substitution or pretended substitution to deceive the defense. 15yd penalty from the previous spot replay the down.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Again, considering EVERY situation is unique, what is the language in the UNS rule that prohibits it's application in THIS instance?

[CalhounLJ]

Again, considering EVERY situation is unique, what is the language in the UNS rule that prohibits it's application in THIS instance?

Which UNS rule are you speaking of?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk