Trick Play

[J12]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iK-4N1r9E94

This is an old clip and perhaps it's been discussed on here but I don't remember seeing it. 

I'm thinking this is an illegal deception since the offense snapped the ball when it was not evident that a snap was forthcoming.

Illegal Formation?  I know of nothing that says those on the line (or anywhere else) have to be facing in any particular direction.  So I'm thinking the formation is legal. Although if they are standing like this, that could be considered an element of the illegal deception.

[Curious]

IMHO, this is an illegal formation.  At least the left end (and I believe the right end also - but the camera pans away from him), is/are not on the line of scrimmage.  At least the left end does not meet the criteria of an A lineman as he is is not facing his opponents goal line with his shoulders approximately parallel thereto...when the ball is snapped.

See 2-32-9

This is another trick play which, again in my opinion, MUST be held to the highest standard!

[VALJ]

J-12, see the definition of a lineman, as Curious says.

[prab]

This clip is strong evidence that switching from knickers to the NFL pants was a good idea.

[ALStripes17]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iK-4N1r9E94

This is an old clip and perhaps it's been discussed on here but I don't remember seeing it. 

I'm thinking this is an illegal deception since the offense snapped the ball when it was not evident that a snap was forthcoming.

Illegal Formation?  I know of nothing that says those on the line (or anywhere else) have to be facing in any particular direction.  So I'm thinking the formation is legal. Although if they are standing like this, that could be considered an element of the illegal deception.

Only problem I can see is the left end (WR at the top of the screen) does not have his shoulders facing opponents' goal line (but he is on the line in a location sense)  And honestly, I think flagging that gets a bit technical when it comes to the purpose of the rule.
<Br/>
There doesn't seem to be any communicating between anyone with the sideline and the QB is looking at the center almost the entire time.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[J12]

J-12, see the definition of a lineman, as Curious says.

Yes.  In the stands, I'm the rules expert.  On here, not so much.  Thanks for the clarification.

[gmgiesey]

9.10.1 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.

Based on this case book play comment, I believe a USC flag is warranted here, not just an Illegal Formation.  The linemen and running backs were looking to the sideline and acting as if the snap wasn't imminent.

[skip1]

You can see one of the backs talking to the side lines. I think it would fall under the following case book play.

9.10.1 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.

[ALStripes17]

Based on this case book play comment, I believe a USC flag is warranted here, not just an Illegal Formation.  The linemen and running backs were looking to the sideline and acting as if the snap wasn't imminent.

I still wouldn't believe it's that black and white. You have a center and a QB that go to and remain in position to start the down. The offense goes right to their positions and relax. Don't know what was said on-field but from physical actions, Im not 100% on a flag here.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[centexsports]

If the coach failed to go over this play prior to the game with the referee then I think they should be flagged for USC as a dead ball.   If he did go over the play with the referee then I suspect the white hat told him the criteria that must be met for him to consider it to be legal.   Example:  Everyone in position and set for at least one second, no verbal communication that might be deceiving, etc. 

I can't imagine that this was not discussed prior to the game.

[ALStripes17]

If the coach failed to go over this play prior to the game with the referee then I think they should be flagged for USC as a dead ball.   If he did go over the play with the referee then I suspect the white hat told him the criteria that must be met for him to consider it to be legal.   Example:  Everyone in position and set for at least one second, no verbal communication that might be deceiving, etc. 

I can't imagine that this was not discussed prior to the game.

Whether a play is discussed prior to the game has no bearing on what actually happens when a play like this is ran in a game. The pregame chat is only to make the crew aware of a particular play/situation or speak with the coach regarding the legality. Once the play is actually run in a game, it is officiated just like every other play.

[centexsports]

Horse Hockey!   One of the tenets of good officiating is Preventive Officiating.   When a coach lets a white hat know of a special or unusual play prior to the game, the referee should make sure that both he and the coach are on the same page to the rule requirements for this play, formation, etc.   It also alerts the crew to be extra vigilant for potential issues once they see that the play is going to be run.   

As far as my statement that I would probably flag it it he had not talked to me about it, the penalty would not be for his lack of open dialogue prior to the game but I would just be more likely to pop his for USC for deception if I was caught off guard (it happens).   

I had two instances this year that if the coach had talked to me prior to the game about the formations they were going to use, it would have saved them a 5 yard penalty during the game.   One was a free kick formation where one man stood five yards almost directly behind the ball.   From my standpoint (5 man mechanics) it looked like there were only 3 men on one side of the ball.   The coach said that he was a foot on the correct side of the ball.     On the subsequent kickoffs, I was able to get my umpire to verify that he was indeed just on the correct side.   

The second was a shift from a free kick formation into a shotgun and there were not five men numbered between 50-79 on the line.   If the coach had told me about this shift I would have told him that the numbering exception disappears when the kick formation goes away.
 
Pre-game talks does have a bearing.   If I am wrong then so be it.

[TampaSteve]

For those of the opinion of USC - just purely for "what if"s sake:
what if A was signaling in a play that everyone but QB and center were looking at?

[AlUpstateNY]

I still wouldn't believe it's that black and white. You have a center and a QB that go to and remain in position to start the down. The offense goes right to their positions and relax. Don't know what was said on-field but from physical actions, Im not 100% on a flag here.

Definitely leaning your way, AlStripes.  Without hearing anything sinister, or deliberately misleading, I see a team set, two players legally in the backfield look to their sideline (maybe they just forgot their assignments) the ball is snapped (maybe just a mistake by the snapper). 

Many teams teach players when there is a "clusterXXX" and everything breaks down, fall-back is everyone immediately do what was planned for inadvertent clusterxxxxx, which for a receiver may very likely be "go deep". 

As for the defense, assuming the RFP was clearly blown, everyone should be on full alert and ready to react and respond.  So the question is; was this simply a broken-play, and one team was far better prepared for such an emergency, or was this a really devious deliberate illegal effort to deceive. 

If you are ABSOLUTELY sure of the latter, and believe you are PREPARED to appropriately defend your assessment, it's your flag, but it seems, by what's provided on this clip, the evidence is extremely doubtful  and it's your choice to gauge the thickness of the ice your about to step out on.

As for 9-10-1 Situation B, unless you have some pretty convincing verbiage to back up your judgment, the ice you've now decided to stand on, doesn't seem capable of supporting your call (unless you have a professional mind reader standing by, who'll support you.)

When you really have to search for a foul, you'll rarely ever REALLY find one.

[TxSkyBolt]

I do realize this was posted in the Federation Section, but it was Texas HS Championship game played under NCAA rules. I believe this to be an illegal formation because the left split end was not legally on his scrimmage line (due to him facing 90 degrees to his scrimmage line). Other than that, it would have been a legal play. No using equipment to deceive (wheres my shoe, the tee, etc).

[ALStripes17]

Horse Hockey!   One of the tenets of good officiating is Preventive Officiating.   When a coach lets a white hat know of a special or unusual play prior to the game, the referee should make sure that both he and the coach are on the same page to the rule requirements for this play, formation, etc.   It also alerts the crew to be extra vigilant for potential issues once they see that the play is going to be run.   

As far as my statement that I would probably flag it it he had not talked to me about it, the penalty would not be for his lack of open dialogue prior to the game but I would just be more likely to pop his for USC for deception if I was caught off guard (it happens).   

I had two instances this year that if the coach had talked to me prior to the game about the formations they were going to use, it would have saved them a 5 yard penalty during the game.   One was a free kick formation where one man stood five yards almost directly behind the ball.   From my standpoint (5 man mechanics) it looked like there were only 3 men on one side of the ball.   The coach said that he was a foot on the correct side of the ball.     On the subsequent kickoffs, I was able to get my umpire to verify that he was indeed just on the correct side.   

The second was a shift from a free kick formation into a shotgun and there were not five men numbered between 50-79 on the line.   If the coach had told me about this shift I would have told him that the numbering exception disappears when the kick formation goes away.
 
Pre-game talks does have a bearing.   If I am wrong then so be it.

I agree that the pregame meeting with coaches is beneficial for preventative officiating (which was clear in my response), but let me reiterate my actual point:

Once the game begins, the pregame meeting has no bearing on the actual fouls that occur or are assessed! Either it's legal or it's not based on the rules. My pregame meeting with the coach does not dictate how to officiate the play once the game has begun.

[Ralph Damren]

  (5 man crew)

IMHO, Case 9.10.1 was written to cover plays such as this (I know ,as I wrote it back in 2003 - was 9.9.3B back then).

IMHO, in your pregame meeting with the coaches, always ask : "Do you have any trick or unusual plays?" if the coach responded with this, your response could be : " We stopped allowing plays like that in 2003, coach. "

[Rulesman]

(5 man crew)

IMHO, Case 9.10.1 was written to cover plays such as this (I know ,as I wrote it back in 2003 - was 9.9.3B back then).

IMHO, in your pregame meeting with the coaches, always ask : "Do you have any trick or unusual plays?" if the coach responded with this, your response could be : " We stopped allowing plays like that in 2003, coach."

Not sure I like that answer. Almost condescending and looking for trouble.

[Ralph Damren]

Not sure I like that answer. Almost condescending and looking for trouble.

Agree, I should have included ... . My suggested answer would now be : "Coach, that is considered unsportsmanlike by our rules and would not be legal." 

[prab]

In this area ALL of the coaches know ALL of the rules and a play like this would NEVER come up.

[Rulesman]

Agree, I should have included ... . My suggested answer would now be : "Coach, that is considered unsportsmanlike by our rules and would not be legal."

[CalhounLJ]

In this area ALL of the coaches know ALL of the rules and a play like this would NEVER come up.

I need to move to your area...

[ncwingman]

I need to move to your area...

I too would like to move to Lake Wobegon.

[KWH]

"Coach, that is considered unsportsmanlike by our rules and would not be legal."

I agree 100% with my friend Ralph's pregame answer to the coach.   
All of these "Crap Football" plays are exactly that!!! As such, they belong in the same depository as all the Monday Night Taco Feed Tacos end up on Tuesday afternoon.

Additionally, everybody take another look, the up back to the Quarterbacks right is "CLEARLY" communicating with the bench which violates the spirit and intent of 9.10.1 as he is "CLEARLY" using "Actions or Verbiage designed to confuse the defense into believing there is a problem and the snap is not imminent!"
This is a dead ball foul thrown at the snap!  Shut the play down and issue a UNS to the Head Coach of Team A. This foul is enforced from the previous spot and even if the play be allowed to run to its conclusion, the TD is canceled.
Of course the Head coach of A will want an explanation. Be thoughtful and choose your words carefully! Lord help the coach of A should he subsequently choose to disrespectfully address a game official,  (9-8-1c), or indicate objections to a game official decision (9-8-1d)

However this sandlot play occurred in Texas Stadium. Texas is not an NFHS member state for Football.  Might just be legal in the Lone Star State. Might just make them Texas Proud! 
This type of Crap football is NOT legal in any of the 49 Member NFHS jurisdictions.

Shut it down and drop your flag as these plays go away when you do!!!   

[BIG UMP]

Any trick play MUST be 100% legal.  Illegal formation at the very least and USC on head coach is very possible.