Illegal Participation?

[jason]

Doing some video review and this happened.

1:30 or so in the 4th QTR. B is up by 9 pts.

A 1/G @ B4. A throws the out, and B33 intercepts at the GL. He's taking it 100 yards and smoking the Referee in the process.

While B33 is running it back, several members of B's team enter the field. Some of them are intermingled among opposing players who now have to discern which member of B might attempt a block. One such potential A tackler may have had a chance to stop the TD, but had to alter course because of the B interloper.

The crew called illegal participation and brought the 100yd TD back.

Can there be live ball illegal participation here? In my opinion, the kids entering the field aren't A. Players, B. Substitutes, or C. Replaced Players per Rule 2 verbiage, and that eliminates illegal participation.

[GA Umpire]

Doing some video review and this happened.

1:30 or so in the 4th QTR. B is up by 9 pts.

A 1/G @ B4. A throws the out, and B33 intercepts at the GL. He's taking it 100 yards and smoking the Referee in the process.

While B33 is running it back, several members of B's team enter the field. Some of them are intermingled among opposing players who now have to discern which member of B might attempt a block. One such potential A tackler may have had a chance to stop the TD, but had to alter course because of the B interloper.

The crew called illegal participation and brought the 100yd TD back.

Can there be live ball illegal participation here? In my opinion, the kids entering the field aren't A. Players, B. Substitutes, or C. Replaced Players per Rule 2 verbiage, and that eliminates illegal participation.

Jason,
It would appear that 9-6-3 applies in this situation.
Per your description of the play, the personnel off the bench hindered the player with a chance to make the tackle.
It appears the crew got the call correct as the penalty is "15 yards, live ball, basic spot".

[FLAHL]

He's taking it 100 yards and smoking the Referee in the process

A high school referee who can beat a 17 or 18 year old DB to the goal line from 80 yards away is like a leprechaun riding a unicorn - It may exist, but I’ve never seen it.

[CalhounLJ]

I agree. I am 56 years old, and have given my crewmates (and any player) my permission to pass me at any point. 

[Tom.OH]

A high school referee who can beat a 17 or 18 year old DB to the goal line from 80 yards away is like a leprechaun riding a unicorn - It may exist, but I’ve never seen it.

My crew did a game with the defending 100 meter state track champion...

[Ralph Damren]

Coming off the bench and interfering with the potential tackler isn't much different than coming off the bench to make the tackle. Where the IP spot foul rectifies the play, unlike the tackler coming off the bench, 9-9-1 would not need to be applied.

[jason]

Jason,
It would appear that 9-6-3 applies in this situation.
Per your description of the play, the personnel off the bench hindered the player with a chance to make the tackle.
It appears the crew got the call correct as the penalty is "15 yards, live ball, basic spot".

The point of the question is the intricacy of 9-6-3.

The kid who comes off the bench is not a "player" by definition (2-32-1). He's also not a "replaced player" or a "substitute." So that makes Illegal Participation per 9-6-3, 9-6-4-a, 9-6-4-c, or 9-6-4-d incorrect.

Furthermore, 9-8-1-i covers when a nonplayer is on the field.

[ncwingman]

I would argue that any person in uniform (legally equipped) that enters the field of play is immediately a "substitute" (by 2-32-15 definition). 3-7-6 states that illegal substitution occurs when "a replaced player or substitute enters the field", so any "player" coming off the bench would fall into one of those two categories.

[CalhounLJ]

I agree with NC. This is illegal participation all day. At least the way it is described.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jwkde]

Enforcement spot?

I agree with NC. This is illegal participation all day. At least the way it is described.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bama_stripes]

Enforcement spot?

Foul during a running play.  Basic spot is end of the run, but the foul was by A behind the basic spot, so enforcement is from the spot of the foul, which is where the substitutes entered the field.

[CalhounLJ]

What he said 

[Ralph Damren]

9-6-3 : "No replaced player, substitute, coach ,athletic trainer or other attendant...." covers everyone including the bus driver  . If it influenced the play, by the scoring team, you've got all but one enforcement. If it was by the defense, and prevented a score, apply 9-9-1 (the unfair act rule) and tack IP either on the PAT or ensuing kickoff.

9-8-1i applies to a  grumpy coach.

[brettjr2005]

Foul during a running play.  Basic spot is end of the run, but the foul was by A behind the basic spot, so enforcement is from the spot of the foul, which is where the substitutes entered the field.

Illegal participation is actually penalized from the spot of participation, which is not necessarily where the substitute enters the field.  So, while he definitely could have participated (affected the play in some way) where he entered the field, he also could have took his first step onto the field at (for example) the 40 but not actually got in the way or affected the play in any way (participated) until coming further onto the field and getting in the way at the 30, which would make the spot of the foul the 30. 

Perhaps you were just being specific to this exact play and your reading of it, but the enforcement spot of illegal participation (spot of first participation, not where the player enters the field) seems to be a pretty common mistake so I just wanted to clarify for anyone that's reading this.