RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: Curious on November 02, 2010, 11:24:56 AM
-
I'm unabashedly stealing this question from the NCAA forum because, while the NCAA has some different rules, the play has significance at the HS level - especially since many teams are going to the "no huddle" offense.
"Team A breaks the huddle with 10 players, who assume position in the formation and become set. A35, who did not participate in the previous play, realizes he should be lined up as a back on this play, and enters the field from the team area. After he is inside the 9-yard marks, but while he his still running to his position, the ball is snapped. His movement is otherwise legal (not forward, no other players moving while he is running onto the field.) Ruling?"
How would you handle this in your High School game?
-
Although there's no case play directly on point, CB 3.7.5 seems to indicate that this is an illegal shift, since A35 did not come set for at least one second. That's what I'd call on the field.
-
yes- Illegal shift- ALL 11 players must come to a stop after a huddle or shift. In this instance, the entering sub did not.
Depending on when he entered, it could be illegal substitution as the down begins at the snap.
-
Got to be set for a second. ^flag
-
While I agree that there's a foul, the discussion on the NCAA side is pretty interesting reading. There are some that think it's a shift, others think its Illegal Sub, and still others think it's nothing.
Actually, based on the wording in the quoted NCAA rule some argue that, since the player was never in the huddle - or in an offensive formation - he does not have to stop for a second; and their rule for illegal shifts says "all players".
In the NFHS rule (2-39), a shift is defined similarly - "after a huddle or after taking set positions". BUT the wording in 7-2-6 is all 11 players....
So, because A11 neither got to the huddle nor took a set position, I lean toward Illegal Sub. Anyway, I ain't gonna let it go......
-
You might read ALL of NF: 7-2-7. In NF: 7-2-6 it states "After a huddle or shift all 11 players of A shall come to an absolute stop...." It does not require that ALL 11 players of A were part of that huddle, only that "after a huddle....by A.....".
-
So, because A11 neither got to the huddle nor took a set position, I lean toward Illegal Sub. Anyway, I ain't gonna let it go......
There's nothing he's done that's violated 3-7 so an illegal sub would be out of the question. He's perfectly legal until the ball is snapped. I have an illegal shift.
-
There's nothing he's done that's violated 3-7 so an illegal sub would be out of the question. He's perfectly legal until the ball is snapped. I have an illegal shift.
May I respectfully disagree "hootch"? Again, the definition of a shift (2-39) is "..action of one or more offensive players who, after a huddle or taking a set position, move to a new set position before the ensuing snap".
Think of it this way: Rule 2-32-15 defines a substitute as "...becoming a player when he enters the field and communicates with a teammate or official, enters the huddle, is positioned in a formation, or participates in the play". So, if he hasn't met any of these conditions to become a player before the ball is snapped, why shouldn't we consider Illegal Substitution?
Can a non-player shift?
(As we see more "no huddle" offenses, these substitution patterns will arise more frequently; so it seems to me that we will need to focus on the legality of those substitutions relative to when an entering substitute becomes a player.)
-
Think of it this way: Rule 2-32-15 defines a substitute as "...becoming a player when he enters the field and communicates with a teammate or official, enters the huddle, is positioned in a formation, or participates in the play". So, if he hasn't met any of these conditions to become a player before the ball is snapped, why shouldn't we consider Illegal Substitution?
So if he says hello to the wing official on his side as he enters, he's a "player", but if he ignores the wing, he's not?
That doesn't sound right, either.
-
Read all of 2-32-15: A substitute is a team member who may replace a player or fill a player vacancy. A substitute becomes a player when he enters the field and communicates with a teammate or an official, enters the huddle, is positioned in a formation or participates in the play. An entering substitute is not considered to be a player for encroachment restrictions until he is on his team’s side of the neutral zone. A team member entering the field to fill a player vacancy remains a substitute until he is on his team’s side of the neutral zone.
Once a substitute who is filling a player's vacancy is on their side of the neutral zone, they become a player.
Case 3.7.5.A discusses this play, sort of.
The whole business about communicating with a player, lining up in a formation, enter the huddle, etc. starts the three second clock on replacing the 12th player. Note, 2-32-15 does not say "only becomes a player when..." Filling a vacancy automatically makes the substitute a player once they are on their side of the neutral zone.
I agree with bama_stripes and others: Illegal Shift.
-
Case 3.7.5.A discusses this play, sort of.
I agree with bama_stripes and others: Illegal Shift.
Okay, okay...I surrender! It's not Illeg Sub. Missed the CB play...
-
May I respectfully disagree "hootch"? Again, the definition of a shift (2-39) is "..action of one or more offensive players who, after a huddle or taking a set position, move to a new set position before the ensuing snap".
Think of it this way: Rule 2-32-15 defines a substitute as "...becoming a player when he enters the field and communicates with a teammate or official, enters the huddle, is positioned in a formation, or participates in the play". So, if he hasn't met any of these conditions to become a player before the ball is snapped, why shouldn't we consider Illegal Substitution?
Can a non-player shift?
(As we see more "no huddle" offenses, these substitution patterns will arise more frequently; so it seems to me that we will need to focus on the legality of those substitutions relative to when an entering substitute becomes a player.)
I agree that technically he's a sub since he hasn't fulfilled any requirement of 2-32-15. However, like AB says, we have to use some football sense here and say he is a player. You could really stretch it and say he's part of the formation since he's legally in motion, has come inside the ticks after the ready and isn't lined up illegally. If you want to call him a sub then 3-7 says he's not an illegal sub.
-
I agree that technically he's a sub since he hasn't fulfilled any requirement of 2-32-15.
Actually, he has filled a requirement to be a player per 2-32-15:
A team member entering the field to fill a player vacancy remains a substitute until he is on his team’s side of the neutral zone.
-
Actually, he has filled a requirement to be a player per 2-32-15:
That doesn't make him a player, it means he hasn't violated 3-7-5.
-
That doesn't make him a player, it means he hasn't violated 3-7-5.
I may not fulfill everyone's gramatical fantasies, but I'd flag him for illegal motion, not give it a second thought and sleep like a newborn with a crystal conscience that night.
It's hard to tell what part of "becomes a player" would not be satisfied by, "After he is inside the 9-yard marks, but while he his still running to his position" (although given the details available nobody knows for sure what this "position" might have been). It seems like his actions satisfy either, "is positioned in a formation, or participates in the play" portions of
NF: 2-32-15.