Illegal Participation or Substitution?

[HLinNC]

Ump see 3.7.5 B, that's as direct as you will get.

[Curious]

A couple of technical questions regarding Wolverine's OP and, assuming that in his plays, bbeagle means the entering sub is B11:

1. Does the sub actually enter during the down?
2. Does it matter (when he enters) for IP and/or IS - and why or why not?   

[bossman72]

I had a play that "almost" happened.

On a try, team B has a late running sub and the ball is snapped before he gets on his side of the neutral zone.  Kick is good.

We can put this on the kickoff, correct?

[maven]

We can put this on the kickoff, correct?

Correct. Foul occurred during a scoring play.

[dch]

FBUmp was absolutely correct in his original post regarding the original play.  Illegal substitution at the snap if the entering team B substitute (11th man) is on the field but not on his side of the line of scrimmage.  Then also illegal participation if he participates on either side of the line of scrimmage.  Case Book 3.7-4 is certainly clear about this.
Case Book 3.7.5 Situation B only covers the first part of the play  It doesn't continue on to include anything about the the 11th man then participating in the play.

Some of the variations of the original play that have been discussed would result in the illegal substitution foul being more advantages for Team A than the subsequent illegal participation foul (because of the basic spot differences if the running play ends way behind the line of scrimmage).

Illegal Substitution and Illegal Participation fouls are often confusing and misinterpreted -- but we should not make them worse than they are.  Case Book 3.7.4 is clear and consistent with the rules -- we should go with that.

[HLinNC]

There is no Case Play 3.7.4 in the 2012 Case Book.  It goes from 3.7.3 Situation D to 3.7.5 Situation A.

[maven]

There is no Case Play 3.7.4 in the 2012 Case Book.  It goes from 3.7.3 Situation D to 3.7.5 Situation A.

He's talking about 3.7 COMMENT, point #4, which is the same passage FBUmp has quoted.

dch, I will repeat what I told FBUmp. If you look up the rule citation in that passage (9-6-4c), you will see that this provision of the IP rule applies to 12 players (or more). It would NOT apply if the sub running on the field were the 11th player. Furthermore, NO provision of the IP rule would apply to that player running onto the field prior to the down and then participating. It simply is not IP (though is still IS).

3.7 COMMENT is an attempt to apply the rules in a helpful way, and does not provide any additional prohibitions beyond what you find in 9-6-4.

[HLinNC]

He's talking about 3.7 COMMENT, point #4,

Ah, got it now.  Agree he's the 11th player, don't think he can illegally participate.

[FBUmp]

Ump see 3.7.5 B, that's as direct as you will get.

I've seen it.  While 3.7.5 addresses the 11th player, 3.7 says nothing about the sub being the 11th or 12th player.  Still think there needs to be further clarification as to how they want it called.

[HLinNC]

Reddings Guide indeed says its illegal participation.  Sorry it took so long to drag it out.   Haven't had it with me.

Pg. 135: Wrong Side of Neutral Zone-No Participation
     "Encroachment restrictions apply only to players and not to substitutes or replaced players.  A team member who is entering the field to fill a player vacancy (when the team has less than 11 players on the field) must be on his team's side of the neutral zone prior to the snap or free kick.  If the snap or free kick occurs while such a team member is on his opponent's side of the neutral zone he is considered to be a substitute, not a player.  As a result (1) If he does not participate, it is a live-ball foul for Illegal Substitution simultaneous with the snap (previous spot enforcement), a five yard penalty (3-7-5); or (2) if he participates in any way by hindering an opponent, drawing coverage or touching the ball, it is a live-ball foul for illegal participation(9-6-3)"

Pg 138  "Example 10-24 Second and ten on Team B's 20 yard line.  As Team A leaves their huddle and comes to the line, Team B realizes they have only 10 players on the field.  B31 then enters the field and is on Team B's 25 yard line when the ball is snapped.  During the play B31 (a) begins to participate while on Team A's side of the neutral zone, (b) doesn't begin to participate until he is on his side of the neutral zone, or (c) simply continues to run towards his side of the neutral zone but doesn't participate at all in the play.

Ruling In (a) and (b), because B31 participated, he is guilty of illegal participation, a 15 yard live-ball foul.  In (c), B31 is flagged for a live-ball, five yard foul for illegal substitution because he was on the wrong side of the neutral zone at the snap and didn't participate in the play."

[FBUmp]

I knew my stubbornness would come in handy eventually! 

[maven]

Ah, I've got it now. 9.7 COMMENT #4 references the wrong rule. It should be 9-6-3, not 9-6-4c.

The operative part of 9-6-3 is that it prohibits a substitute from participating. The 11th man remains a substitute until he is on his side of the NZ. 2-32-15

Thus, if he fails to get to his team's side of the NZ prior to the snap, he remains a substitute (never becomes a player) and thus is prohibited from participating throughout the down.

HLinNC, thanks for following up on this point.

[dch]

Maven,

That is a good way to explain it.  The "remains a substitute" vs being a player helps clarify the rules instead of just relying on the Case Book.  Thanks.

[maven]

Maven,

That is a good way to explain it.  The "remains a substitute" vs being a player helps clarify the rules instead of just relying on the Case Book.  Thanks.

You're welcome. Just putting 2 and 2 together.

I make a living from explaining obscure concepts to people. The NFHS football rules are in my wheelhouse!

[Atlanta Blue]

Thus, if he fails to get to his team's side of the NZ prior to the snap, he remains a substitute (never becomes a player) and thus is prohibited from participating throughout the down.

OK, this is where this reasoning falls apart.  The NZ doesn't disappear at the snap.  In fact, it may even expand.

I agree, if he fails to get to his side of the NZ before participating, then yes, you have an IP foul, I get that, he never became a player.  But if he gets to his side of the NZ, even if it is after the snap, he still got there and became a player rather than a sub.  There is nothing in 2-32-15 that says he has to be on his side BEFORE the snap, only that he remains a sub until he gets to his side of the NZ.

[maven]

OK, this is where this reasoning falls apart.  The NZ doesn't disappear at the snap.  In fact, it may even expand.

I agree, if he fails to get to his side of the NZ before participating, then yes, you have an IP foul, I get that, he never became a player.  But if he gets to his side of the NZ, even if it is after the snap, he still got there and became a player rather than a sub.  There is nothing in 2-32-15 that says he has to be on his side BEFORE the snap, only that he remains a sub until he gets to his side of the NZ.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think the substitute can "legalize" his participation by coming across the LOS to his side AFTER the snap but BEFORE to participating. He is, after all, still an illegal sub. And according to RR (quoted a few posts above by HLinNC), the play you're envisioning is still IP.

Pg 138  "Example 10-24 Second and ten on Team B's 20 yard line.  As Team A leaves their huddle and comes to the line, Team B realizes they have only 10 players on the field.  B31 then enters the field and is on Team B's 25 yard line when the ball is snapped.  During the play B31 (a) begins to participate while on Team A's side of the neutral zone, (b) doesn't begin to participate until he is on his side of the neutral zone, or (c) simply continues to run towards his side of the neutral zone but doesn't participate at all in the play.

Ruling In (a) and (b), because B31 participated, he is guilty of illegal participation, a 15 yard live-ball foul.  In (c), B31 is flagged for a live-ball, five yard foul for illegal substitution because he was on the wrong side of the neutral zone at the snap and didn't participate in the play."

[Curious]

Hey, nobody ever answered my earlier questions about sub "B11"..............

A couple of technical questions regarding Wolverine's OP and, assuming that in his plays, bbeagle means the entering sub is B11:

1. Does the sub actually enter during the down?
2. Does it matter (when he enters) for IP and/or IS - and why or why not?

Hint: when does a down begin?

[Atlanta Blue]

And according to RR (quoted a few posts above by HLinNC), the play you're envisioning is still IP.

In that case, by the wording of the rule, I think Rogers (actually, George Demetriou) is wrong.  The rule says he's a sub until he reaches his side of the NZ.  It says nothing about having to do so BEFORE the snap.

[maven]

In that case, by the wording of the rule, I think Rogers (actually, George Demetriou) is wrong.  The rule says he's a sub until he reaches his side of the NZ.  It says nothing about having to do so BEFORE the snap.

It might: failure to complete the substitution prior to the snap is a foul. The substitution is illegal because it was not completed by the "deadline," and thus not completed at all. A sub who never becomes a player is still a sub.

On your reading, a team can complete a substitution AFTER the snap by having the sub cross the NZ to his own side. The rule does not say that either.

I agree that there is some ambiguity here (can a sub become a player after the snap?). However, RR's reading squares with the unrestricted scope of 3.7 COMMENT in a way that yours does not.