Author Topic: Legal Hideout?  (Read 1260 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bossman72

  • *
  • Posts: 2197
  • FAN REACTION: +303/-26
Legal Hideout?
« on: December 19, 2024, 09:13:23 AM »

Offline ncwingman

  • *
  • Posts: 1359
  • FAN REACTION: +76/-13
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Legal Hideout?
« Reply #1 on: December 19, 2024, 09:29:40 AM »
Do you have a non-twitter link for that?

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 4885
  • FAN REACTION: +870/-28
  • SEE IT-THINK IT-CALL IT
Re: Legal Hideout?
« Reply #2 on: December 19, 2024, 10:23:31 AM »
YES !!

IP if you're in the Christmas mood, USC on head coach if you're not. ]

Offline Kalle

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3369
  • FAN REACTION: +112/-35
Re: Legal Hideout?
« Reply #3 on: December 19, 2024, 12:47:36 PM »
Do you have a non-twitter link for that?

Don't have a link but I'll try to describe the play situation for you.

1/10 at A-40. Team A huddles with 10 players. All 10 players then line up in a bunch formation and stop for a full second. After this A81 runs in from his team area and stops right inside the 9 yard markers. Team A stops for one second and the ball is snapped. QB throws a legal forward pass to the uncovered A81 who runs for a long gain.

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 4885
  • FAN REACTION: +870/-28
  • SEE IT-THINK IT-CALL IT
Re: Legal Hideout?
« Reply #4 on: December 19, 2024, 01:44:52 PM »
IMHO, it appeared to be planned. An IP  ^flag would have previous spot enforcement as it occurred at the snap. If you deamed itto be planned, you could  ^flag USC on the head coach, apply 9-9-1 (unfair act) shut the play down , enforce from previous spot and reset the game clock for any time that may have run off during the play.

Offline BetweenTheLines

  • *
  • Posts: 173
  • FAN REACTION: +12/-3
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Legal Hideout?
« Reply #5 on: December 19, 2024, 03:36:40 PM »
I don't see him between the numbers, he is on the numbers. I would flag it for a 5 yard illegal formation foul. I can't find anything in the rules that penalizes a late substitution which this is. Actions or verbiage designed to confuse the defense into believing there is a problem and a snap isn't imminent is covered but that's not the case here. I don't see how you can call an unfair act or IP on a late substitution. In this film if the player coming in gets "between" the numbers and is set for a second, there is nothing wrong. "Football has always been a game of deception and trickery involving multiple shifts, unusual formations and creative plays", Pg. 98 Casebook. This one is unusual and creative. I just don't find rule support for calling a late substitution a foul.

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 4783
  • FAN REACTION: +344/-924
Re: Legal Hideout?
« Reply #6 on: December 19, 2024, 04:23:31 PM »
I don't see him between the numbers, he is on the numbers. I would flag it for a 5 yard illegal formation foul. I can't find anything in the rules that penalizes a late substitution which this is. Actions or verbiage designed to confuse the defense into believing there is a problem and a snap isn't imminent is covered but that's not the case here. I don't see how you can call an unfair act or IP on a late substitution. In this film if the player coming in gets "between" the numbers and is set for a second, there is nothing wrong. "Football has always been a game of deception and trickery involving multiple shifts, unusual formations and creative plays", Pg. 98 Casebook. This one is unusual and creative. I just don't find rule support for calling a late substitution a foul.
I don't believe the current NFHS rules define the term "Silly BS", but unfortunately there seems to be a growing effort to try and define such behavior, under the guise of "what if".  Hopefully, NFHS will continue to focus on the practical application of behaviors, relevant to the game and ignore the creative fantasies of exaggerations explicitly designed to create unnecessary confusion.

Offline dammitbobby

  • *
  • Posts: 1405
  • FAN REACTION: +32/-9
  • I know just enough to be dangerous...
Re: Legal Hideout?
« Reply #7 on: December 19, 2024, 05:19:03 PM »
Does NFHS not have substitution mechanics that would stop the snap to allow for a matchup?

Offline Snapper

  • *
  • Posts: 158
  • FAN REACTION: +15/-2
Re: Legal Hideout?
« Reply #8 on: December 19, 2024, 05:38:25 PM »
Does NFHS not have substitution mechanics that would stop the snap to allow for a matchup?

No, they don't have that like the NCAA does.

This is illegal participation in Fed.

Offline ilyazhito

  • *
  • Posts: 407
  • FAN REACTION: +12/-16
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Legal Hideout?
« Reply #9 on: December 20, 2024, 07:10:24 AM »
How is it illegal participation if the play, as described, meets the rules requirements (inside the numbers, set for at least 1 second)?

This is why I like the NCAA rule. At that level, if the offense substitutes, officials step in to prevent the snap and allow the defense time to match up. If the defense does nothing after 3 seconds, officials will release to allow the snap. This would cut down on this sort of chicanery.

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 4885
  • FAN REACTION: +870/-28
  • SEE IT-THINK IT-CALL IT
Re: Legal Hideout?
« Reply #10 on: December 20, 2024, 07:17:43 AM »
Illegal Participation Rule 9-6-4d sez : "To use a player, replaced player, substitute, coach, trainer or other attendant (cheerleader, grandmother, team mascot) in a substitution of pretended substitution to deceive opponents at or immedeiately before the snap or free kick." This play would be illegal. The QB didn't look for any other recievers, IMHO, a designed play. Coaches, not kds, design these and ,IMHO, could be charged under the unfair act rule.

Back in 2001, i was on the Editorial committee and the concern was a bevy trick plays that were being tried. I then wrote what is today's Case 9.9.1B with the intent of placing the foul on the head coach for such acts that were beyond the spiritof rules  and fair play. While the case only covered one such play, if we had listed 100 unfair plays some creative coach would design play 101. I've stressed to our coaches to review any creative play they have drawn up with the referee prior to the game to verify it's leagality. For you historians, in 1942 a rule was passed making the use of substitutes to deceive as unsportsmanlike conduct and in 1954 hide-out practices were prohibited. The matchup requirements present in NCAA are felt too much for a 4 or 5 man crew to enforce.

Npw its time to walk ma' hunting dawg . tR:oLl
« Last Edit: December 20, 2024, 07:22:57 AM by Ralph Damren »

Offline bossman72

  • *
  • Posts: 2197
  • FAN REACTION: +303/-26
Re: Legal Hideout?
« Reply #11 on: December 20, 2024, 08:25:13 AM »
The matchup requirements present in NCAA are felt too much for a 4 or 5 man crew to enforce.

I don't think the crew size would be prohibitive to this rule.  This is done in Europe with 5 man crews all the time with no issues.

The issue is that the rule is really tough to enforce.  We even have trouble in NCAA with teams gaming the system and opening/closing the sub window consistently.  I could see this being a mess in HS, especially the way the NFHS rules makers can screw up the ingredients list for toast.

Online ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 3899
  • FAN REACTION: +177/-150
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Legal Hideout?
« Reply #12 on: December 20, 2024, 08:59:14 AM »
Before the NCAA adopted their current substitution practices, I had a team attempt this very type of tactic. To the coach's credit, he told us they would try this, and I told him that his player had to get within the 9 yard marks. So, I/we were aware they would/might try this. So, following a down, as the teams were huddling, I saw this player kinda 'ease' onto the field, and knew this was it. Oh, I'm confused. What down is it? I sound my whistle, stop the clock, and move to confer with wing official on the side of the field where this 'hideout' player was standing. "Steve! What down is it? I have second down. What do you have? Oh. Second down. OK. Good. Thank you." Guess what. In the mean time, Team B sees this hidin' out dude, and adjusts to get him covered. They run the play. Incomplete pass. 3rd down. We moved on. They didn't try that tactic again.

 

Offline riffraft

  • *
  • Posts: 312
  • FAN REACTION: +18/-19
Re: Legal Hideout?
« Reply #13 on: December 20, 2024, 10:33:34 AM »
We can argue whether it fits the definition of IP (unfair act). However it is clearly illegal formation.  Receiver never made it inside the 9 yard mark. Any time a team tries a "trick" play we should hold them to the letter of the rules.

Offline GoodScout

  • *
  • Posts: 458
  • FAN REACTION: +11/-10
Re: Legal Hideout?
« Reply #14 on: December 20, 2024, 11:25:24 AM »
He's not inside the numbers. And thus he gets a flag under my "you can run a trick play, but you'd better run it perfectly" philosophy.

Offline NVFOA_Ump

  • *
  • Posts: 4050
  • FAN REACTION: +106/-303
  • High School (MA & RI)
    • Massachusetts Independent Football Officials Association
Re: Legal Hideout?
« Reply #15 on: December 20, 2024, 01:44:50 PM »
We can argue whether it fits the definition of IP (unfair act). However it is clearly illegal formation.  Receiver never made it inside the 9 yard mark. Any time a team tries a "trick" play we should hold them to the letter of the rules.


Many years ago I was told to use the guideline "would it work" on the opposite side of the field.  ie:  if the "incoming substitute" was not on his own sideline, AND the wide receivers were not all in tight would this play work?   Pretty clearly the answer to this is NO.  In NFHS you simply cannot use the substitution process to deceive the opponent. IF the incoming substitute is covered by the defense then this may be a"talk to" to the coach but in any case IMHO, this draws a flag.
It's easy to get the players, getting 'em to play together, that's the hard part. - Casey Stengel

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 4885
  • FAN REACTION: +870/-28
  • SEE IT-THINK IT-CALL IT
Re: Legal Hideout?
« Reply #16 on: December 28, 2024, 09:27:34 AM »
After further review by the replay official.... you can note the coach signaling to Mr. Touchdown that now is the time to step on the field. Clearly a violation of 9-6-4d and an unfair act.
Mr. Coach should be now halfway to the bus or locker room. ^flag

Online ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 3899
  • FAN REACTION: +177/-150
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Legal Hideout?
« Reply #17 on: December 28, 2024, 11:18:22 AM »
The terms ‘hideout’ and ‘legal’ are mutually exclusive. Not unlike when a coach asks how he can legally cause team A to false start. Uh, Coach, you can’t. That’s called CHEATING, you dumb arse…

Offline sj

  • *
  • Posts: 214
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-0
Re: Legal Hideout?
« Reply #18 on: December 28, 2024, 11:52:26 AM »
On the NFHS network broadcast of the game apparently Coach B recognized that the receiver who came onto the field was uncovered and was yelling for a timeout when he saw it happening. You can’t tell if the request came before or after the snap.

If it happens that Coach B is granted the timeout in this situation where Team A is doing something that is, or will be illegal, should there be any consequences for A?

« Last Edit: December 28, 2024, 04:36:50 PM by sj »

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 4885
  • FAN REACTION: +870/-28
  • SEE IT-THINK IT-CALL IT
Re: Legal Hideout?
« Reply #19 on: December 29, 2024, 08:37:26 AM »
IMHO, you could still hit A's coach with an UNC for an unfair act. This act caused B's coach to burn a timeout and I would return the TO to him.

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 4783
  • FAN REACTION: +344/-924
Re: Legal Hideout?
« Reply #20 on: December 29, 2024, 10:08:05 AM »
IMHO, you could still hit A's coach with an UNC for an unfair act. This act caused B's coach to burn a timeout and I would return the TO to him.
I agree with returning B's Time Out.  As for the UNC on the "A" coach, that may well be appropriate, bur that would depend on whether it was a players error, or it was due to a direct Coach's instruction.

Presuming it was a "first" occurrence, I would strongly explain there would be severe consequences to any repeat behavior.

Offline BIG UMP

  • *
  • Posts: 240
  • FAN REACTION: +10/-1
Re: Legal Hideout?
« Reply #21 on: January 03, 2025, 09:14:06 AM »
Trick play has to be perfect, WR did not come to top of numbers.  IS
Big Ump


"EVERY JOB IS A SELF-PORTRAIT OF THE PERSON WHO DID IT.  AUTOGRAPH YOUR WORK WITH EXCELLENCE."~unknown

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 4885
  • FAN REACTION: +870/-28
  • SEE IT-THINK IT-CALL IT
Re: Legal Hideout?
« Reply #22 on: January 05, 2025, 06:44:40 AM »
IMHO, the 9 yard rule shouldn't apply as it is clearly a violation of  9-6-4d and should be flagged for IP. Could you tack on coach's USC for an unfair act ? You could, and the 30 yards + a ticket to exit if anouther would probably send the message that this was not a very good idea. pi1eOn

IMHO, "Coach, do youhave any unusal plays that we should be ready for  ??? ?" will usually bring an honest answer as phrased as we  z^ need to be ready to handle it properly  :o. A play shuch as this one should have been killed in pregame.            pi1eOn

Offline Rich

  • *
  • Posts: 78
  • FAN REACTION: +6/-5
Re: Legal Hideout?
« Reply #23 on: January 06, 2025, 02:45:24 PM »
IMHO, the 9 yard rule shouldn't apply as it is clearly a violation of  9-6-4d and should be flagged for IP. Could you tack on coach's USC for an unfair act ? You could, and the 30 yards + a ticket to exit if anouther would probably send the message that this was not a very good idea. pi1eOn

IMHO, "Coach, do youhave any unusal plays that we should be ready for  ??? ?" will usually bring an honest answer as phrased as we  z^ need to be ready to handle it properly  :o. A play shuch as this one should have been killed in pregame.            pi1eOn

We had a coach start down a similar explanation in our pregame this past season and we were able to make sure he removed that play from the playbook - at least for one night.  Or he was just testing us, who knows....