Play from NC 4A championship game

[NVFOA_Ump]

I'll stick with the guidelines that I was taught some 20 years +/- ago:

1. Was the substitution process an integral part of the play - Yes
2. Did team A "accidentally" botch the substitution process - Yes
3. Did the substitution "correction" happen last second - Yes
4. Was team B clearly disadvantaged as a direct result of the substitution process - Yes
5. Would the substitution "correction" have worked if team A was on the other sideline? - No

The result of this play was that team B was deceived during the substitution process.  We're obviously free to make our own judgement call.   

When I'm doing an NCAA rules game the rules makers have had the good sense to finally eliminate the need to make the "judgement" when IMHO none is really needed.

[TampaSteve]

1/10 at the B14, Team A WR subs in late, gets set inside the numbers after the ready.  QB recognizes that no B player has noticed the WR and snaps the ball quickly.  Pass to wide open WR who walks in. 

Any support for a foul here or does 7-2-1 pretty much cover this as legal?

So......how was it called?

[CalhounLJ]

I'll stick with the guidelines that I was taught some 20 years +/- ago:

1. Was the substitution process an integral part of the play - Yes
2. Did team A "accidentally" botch the substitution process - Yes
3. Did the substitution "correction" happen last second - Yes
4. Was team B clearly disadvantaged as a direct result of the substitution process - Yes
5. Would the substitution "correction" have worked if team A was on the other sideline? - No

The result of this play was that team B was deceived during the substitution process.  We're obviously free to make our own judgement call.   

When I'm doing an NCAA rules game the rules makers have had the good sense to finally eliminate the need to make the "judgement" when IMHO none is really needed.

To be sure, the defense was confused. However, I keep getting hung up on the "deception" argument. How was B "deceived?" If deception means to "cause someone to believe something that is not true," what was the "something" A was trying to convince B was true that in fact was not true? I can see the hidden player trick being deception, because A is trying to get B to believe the hidden player is a substitute who has left the field when in reality he hasn't. I don't see that being the case here. A simply substitutes late, which is completely legal by rule.

Also, I'm having trouble with (B) in your breakdown. How did A "botch" the substitution? Again, substituting late in the play clock count is not illegal.

[CalhounLJ]

Another question I have is whether anybody would flag this substitution if B had covered the receiver? Let's say the same thing happens, only this time there is a B player head up on him. A runs the route, drops the ball. Would we flag it then?

[NVFOA_Ump]

Also, I'm having trouble with (B) in your breakdown. How did A "botch" the substitution? Again, substituting late in the play clock count is not illegal.

A botched the substitution by "accidentally" sending in 3 replacements when 4 were "replaced", being at the line, QB under center ready to snap, when a substitute steps on the field conveniently on his sideline, on a conveniently open wing, and sets just inside the numbers as the ball is almost immediately snapped.  You're apparently willing to assume that this action did not result in B being deceived.  I simply disagree since clearly the result was that B was deceived.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Another question I have is whether anybody would flag this substitution if B had covered the receiver? Let's say the same thing happens, only this time there is a B player head up on him. A runs the route, drops the ball. Would we flag it then?

No, if B realizes what has happened and clearly covers the 11th player who came in late I would not flag it.  In that case there is no advantage gained and therefore no flag warranted.  I would however quietly and discreetly remind the coach that we would prefer not to see that "error" again during the game since it could draw a flag for a substitution infraction.

[CalhounLJ]

We will agree to disagree on the first answer. On the second, it seems like in that case you are willing to penalize A because of B’s ineptitude. Just because B doesn’t notice that A has 10 in the formation doesn’t make A’s action illegal. Agreed, if there was a mass sub designed to create deception, that’s a flag. I’ve not read anything in this thread to suggest that’s what happened here.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CalhounLJ]

A botched the substitution by "accidentally" sending in 3 replacements when 4 were "replaced", being at the line, QB under center ready to snap, when a substitute steps on the field conveniently on his sideline, on a conveniently open wing, and sets just inside the numbers as the ball is almost immediately snapped.  You're apparently willing to assume that this action did not result in B being deceived.  I simply disagree since clearly the result was that B was deceived.

I believe Sideline posted that this was NOT a 4 off 3 on situation. It could easily have been a 1 off, nobody on situation. Then, as A coach counts he realizes he’s short one, sends the kid out. The kid and QB realize he’s uncovered and call the audible.  No deception because they weren’t trying to make b believe something that wasn’t true.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[hef333]

This seems pretty simple to me...but remember, I'm an Umpire  ....PIAA rules specify as long as he gets within the numbers and gets set before the snap he is an eligible player.  Whether or not B covers him is irrelevant. 

[Ralph Damren]

IMHO, intent is in the eyes of the beholder and the mind of the perpartator. That being said, the observing official would have to decide if this was an intentional act to gain an illegal advantage.
IMHO, if the play was a sweep to the opposite side, the late arriver  was merely confused.
IMHO, If ,upon arrival of the late arriver, The QB quickly takes a snap  and completes a pass to him  , I would could consider that enough to consider intent.

[AlUpstateNY]

Perhaps an equally important factor as intent, is whether an advantage gained is earned, or unearned.  When there may be legitimate doubt, or question, to intent, observing the results may provide additional detail that add to the ultimate judgment. 

As suggested, a sweep in the opposite direction is far less a factor in suggesting there was deliberate intent to gain an UNEARNED advantage, whereas a quick pass to the late arriving substitute may support such a conclusion and provide opportunity for applying a remedy.

[BBref]

When a team is substituting late like this, the onus is entirely on them to do so in a way that isn't confusing to the defense. Question isn't so much intent as was the defense legitimately confused? Lean toward a foul here.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

[refjeff]

The rule clearly says that it is a foul to deceive the opponent.  Deception and confusion are not the same thing.

A quick pass to an uncovered receiver is an automatic call for many teams.  It is not evidence of intent to deceive.

A 15 yard penalty for a procedural error by a kid, which will probably kill the drive, just doesn't seem warranted.  So, I suggest a 5 yard penalty for illegal substitution.  Yeah I know, maybe not technically correct, but it is within the intent of the rules.  If the substitute WR had lined up at the bottom of the numbers is is absolutely what I would want our crew to call.

The cheap TD is erased.  A is penalized, but not crippled.  Let's play ball.

[CalhounLJ]

If he had lined up at the bottom of the numbers it would have been a foul. In this case he did nothing illegal. The only mistake made was the defense didn’t account for him or cover him. Since they messed up, some are suggesting we penalize A. I disagree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GeorgiaBlue]

I object to the use of the word "late".  As in the player was a "late" sub.  There is no time frame on the substitution in the rule book as far as I can tell.

Was the player within the numbers and set prior to the snap?  Did they meet all of the requirements of a legal substitution?

Play on.....