Illegal Sub or Participation and Then Some

[fudilligas]

Offense has the ball on the defense's 10 yard line ... defense has only ten players... offense recognizes this and hurries to get the play off... defense sends the eleventh player on before the ball is snapped but he is on the wrong the side of the ball and is behind the quarterback when the ball is snapped

1. Live ball?
2. Five yard penalty if he doesn't participate?
3. Fifteen if he does?
4. This is the real question: If it is live, can I kill it if he is making a beeline for the quarterback who is  unaware of his presence and is going to get blindsided with no protection or do I have to let the play go with no regard for the QB's safety

[bossman72]

Yes to the first 3.

4, by rule, no, but nobody will complain if you do.  I would probably shut it down in #4

[ncwingman]

I'm going to disagree with Point 3 -- it is not illegal participation.

3-7-5 states that an entering substitute must be on his team's side of the neutral zone when the ball is snapped, the penalty for which is a live-ball, 5-yard, illegal substitution.

Case Play 3-7-5 SITUATION B: Prior to the snap, B11 recognized he is to be in the game and he enters on A's side of the neutral zone. The ball is snapped before B11 gets to his team side. RULING: Illegal substitution at the snap. If the 5-yard penalty is accepted, it is enforced from the previous spot.

I would agree that if B11 was *ahem* unabated to the quarterback *ahem*, I'd probably "incorrectly" kill it as a dead-ball substitution foul but that's not by rule.

[JKinGA29]

I'm going to disagree with Point 3 -- it is not illegal participation.

I've thought about this one before too as far as whether such a player commits IP by participating. The definition of substitute in 2-32-15 states "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." So he remains a substitute, not a player, as long as he remains on A's side of the NZ.

Combine this with 9-6-3 "No replaced player, substitute...shall hinder an opponent, touch the ball, influence the play, or otherwise participate.

So if, as in the OP, player never gets to his side of NZ but participates in the play, it is IP. If he does get to his side of NZ and then participates, it is just IS.

[The Roamin' Umpire]

I've thought about this one before too as far as whether such a player commits IP by participating. The definition of substitute in 2-32-15 states "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." So he remains a substitute, not a player, as long as he remains on A's side of the NZ.

Combine this with 9-6-3 "No replaced player, substitute...shall hinder an opponent, touch the ball, influence the play, or otherwise participate.

So if, as in the OP, player never gets to his side of NZ but participates in the play, it is IP. If he does get to his side of NZ and then participates, it is just IS.

I agree with you here. Now for the fun question: If one does kill the play because of an unchecked rush at the unaware QB, should one enforce a 5-yard IS or a 15-yard IP?

[ncwingman]

I agree with you here. Now for the fun question: If one does kill the play because of an unchecked rush at the unaware QB, should one enforce a 5-yard IS or a 15-yard IP?

Well, if we're killing a play for a live-ball foul, we're already making up rules to start -- so we might as well make up an enforcement as well. I think I'd call it a shooting foul and award the runner first base.

However, if you're going to call it a dead ball foul, there is no DB IP but there is a DB IS -- especially since the case play states that he committed a substitution (not participation) foul by not being on his side of the neutral zone at the snap.

[VALJ]

Well, if we're killing a play for a live-ball foul, we're already making up rules to start -- so we might as well make up an enforcement as well. I think I'd call it a shooting foul and award the runner first base. 

That is tremendous.     I might give him a penalty shot instead of awarding first base, though.

By RULE, we can't blow that play dead.  If you're going to do that and take that rope far enough to hang yourself, though..  you've blown an IW.  Accepting the participation penalty would override the IW per 4-2-3.

[J12]

If he was on the wrong side of the neutral zone at the snap, he was also on the wrong side of the neutral zone BEFORE the snap.  Can't this simply be encroachment and a dead ball on that call?

[ncwingman]

Slightly paraphrasing 2-8:

Encroachment occurs when a player is illegally in the neutral zone during the time interval starting with the RFP and ending with the snap or free kick. For the purposes of enforcing encroachment restrictions, substitutes are not players until they are on their team's side of the neutral zone.


If a player never enters the neutral zone at all, he cannot have encroached.

[Ralph Damren]

If he was on the wrong side of the neutral zone at the snap, he was also on the wrong side of the neutral zone BEFORE the snap.  Can't this simply be encroachment and a dead ball on that call?

An ole' saying from an ole' zebra : "Ya' can't be offside 'till ya' is onside"

[Curious]

I've thought about this one before too as far as whether such a player commits IP by participating. The definition of substitute in 2-32-15 states "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." So he remains a substitute, not a player, as long as he remains on A's side of the NZ.

Combine this with 9-6-3 "No replaced player, substitute...shall hinder an opponent, touch the ball, influence the play, or otherwise participate.

So if, as in the OP, player never gets to his side of NZ but participates in the play, it is IP. If he does get to his side of NZ and then participates, it is just IS.

Rule 2-32-1 seems to provide for the definition of a "player" to be expanded to "when a substitute otherwise becomes a player" - as opposed to entering and notifying a teammate that he is replacing him.

Here's a post I made a few months ago...while not exactly on point, it MAY help.. or not.

In 2-32-10, a non-player is defined as...."a replaced player who does not participate by touching the ball, hindering an opponent, or influencing the play"

Then in 2-32-15 "a substitute becomes a player when he communicates with a teammate or a game official, enters the huddle, is positioned in a formation or participates in a play.

Therefore, only through the wonder of rules-speak do we arrive at a non-player coming off the bench, for instance, becoming a player by getting illegally involved in the play. 

As the result, the foul for Illegal Participation is not a non-player foul because the substitute formally known as a non-player has become a player!!!