RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: pjsaul on January 01, 2016, 06:13:58 PM
-
Nifty trick play as seen in this video: http://screengrabber.deadspin.com/sputtering-florida-offense-manages-something-indescriba-1750597792
Don't we have an illegal shift here though? Looks like 3 and 21 on Florida are in motion at the same time and do not both become set before the snap.
Does this fall in the realm of an unsportsmanlike penalty for implying the snap is not imminent?
-
No question illegal shift. But they likely didn't notice it as how often does the QB move like that and then reset himself?
-
Although not popular probably, but I definitely have an UNS on this. Line up and play football like men!
-
Although not popular probably, but I definitely have an UNS on this. Line up and play football like men!
Why? Did they imply that there was a problem with the ball or something not-football related? I get it offends your sensibilities but I don't think this meets the threshold of an unfair act or UNS.
-
No such UNS rule in college. There is a case play where a kicking shoe is tossed onto the field, but this is using equipment to deceive. There is no "snap is not imminent" clause like in high school.
Yes, ISH. R or CJ needs to get this. Possibly the wings could get it too.
-
Although not popular probably, but I definitely have an UNS on this. Line up and play football like men!
I wish this play makes a training tape next season with RR saying that it is either legal or illegal. I hate these and think they should be categorically illegal, but there is no actual rule support for flagging it :(
-
I believe that #21 stopped a micro-second before #3 started in motion. At any rate, I wouldn't spilt hairs on that during a meaningless exhibition game either.
-
Those claiming this might not be an IS or suggesting this ought to be let go are working too hard to make this anything other than the bad miss that it is.
And in FED, it's UNS as soon as the upback starts his gesturing. The only proper handling is an immediate whistle and 15 before the snap.
If there's no similar provision in the NCAA rule set, that's a serious deficiency in the rule set.
-
No way you call ILS on this. Way too technical.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Redding's study guide includes the language about trickery to imply the snap is not imminent. Problem is Redding no longer actually writes it and I have personally heard him say "George is not always correct" when asked about something from the Guide. (Referring to George D, the current author)
-
No way you call ILS on this. Way too technical.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There is no such thing as too technical on presnap requirements.
-
No way you call ILS on this. Way too technical.
I disagree - this one is clearly a foul. A-21 is resetting in the backfield and is still moving after A-6 has already started in motion. All 11 players are never reset prior to the snap. Illegal Shift.
Also, we've always been instructed that with trick plays to be vigilant that all pre-snap requirements are complied with 100%. ^flag
-
I thought it was only unfair in that my side was unprepared for it. :P
No foul.
-
I don't even think this would be an unfair act under Fed. The key case play, 9.10.1 SITUATION B:, has two elements: the snap not being imminent AND actions/verbiage designed to cause the defense to think there's a problem (in the case, a missing tee). In this case, there are no actions/verbiage suggesting some problem, just a normal football signal. Legal deception in my judgement.
-
actions/verbiage designed to cause the defense to think there's a problem
And just how, praytell, are A7's arm-flapping movements not this?
-
And just how, praytell, are A7's arm-flapping movements not this?
He's not saying there a problem with the ball or something wrong with the clock or missing equipment or anything non football related...He's signaling to teammates, legit in my book
-
He's not saying there a problem with the ball or something wrong with the clock or missing equipment or anything non football related...He's signaling to teammates, legit in my book
Agree
-
How many high school coaches are drawing this up for Friday night right now?
-
A local team used this play this year I believe.
-
Agree
Forgetting for discussion that this is an illegal shift IMO, if a WR simply went in motion "legally" and was moving legally would we let it go if as he approached the QB in shotgun and start yelling at him and waving his arms? Where do we draw the line about overt actions intended to indicate that they are changing the play call thereby implying that the snap is not imminent vs. "normal" man in motion?
-
I thought if the snappers hand is on the ball, the snap is imminent...
Is that not correct?
-
I don't see unfair acts here. I think the question is ISH and in a normal play I would probably be ok with not calling it. As this is a trick play and we are often told to make sure that they comply with the rules on a trick play it probably should be ISH. I might get told "No Way" by a grader.
-
I don't even think this would be an unfair act under Fed. The key case play, 9.10.1 SITUATION B:, has two elements: the snap not being imminent AND actions/verbiage designed to cause the defense to think there's a problem (in the case, a missing tee). In this case, there are no actions/verbiage suggesting some problem, just a normal football signal. Legal deception in my judgement.
I wrote this case play as a member of the Editorial Committee back in 2001. My intent was to outlaw plays such as this and refrained from publishing a laundry list of illegal acts as if you list 100 a creative coach will come up with #101. IMHO, the brakes should be put on this play in pregame when explained by the coach.
-
Because gambling is frowned upon by the NCAA I cannot wager a Ben Franklin that Coach A never brought this one up in the pregame.
-
I saw the play when it happened. I definitely thought at the time it was/is a ILS. The players were not set at the same time prior to the snap. This is an easy call to make, and I believe most Coordinators would support it. You do not even have to deal with the Unfair Act aspect. The ILS is a supportable call.
-
Forgetting for discussion that this is an illegal shift IMO, if a WR simply went in motion "legally" and was moving legally would we let it go if as he approached the QB in shotgun and start yelling at him and waving his arms? Where do we draw the line about overt actions intended to indicate that they are changing the play call thereby implying that the snap is not imminent vs. "normal" man in motion?
Can you give me an NCAA rule or case book play that says he can't do this? The only one close is the one that has the kicking shoe being thrown onto the field, but that is using equipment to deceive.
-
I believe without the ILS this is a legal play in NCAA. that being said the person gesturing better not be moving forward at the snap. Additionally, I think without the ILS this action does not look as confusing as it did with the ILS. With the QB and the other player moving at the same time the confusion was multiplied, and the play just looked wrong for a lack of a better word.
-
We've always been instructed that a man in motion must either stop and reset or continue in motion in a manner that is smooth and continuous without actions that would simulate the start of the play. IMO in this case we have neither smooth or continuous motion and additionally we have intentional movement combined with apparent verbal play calling that is clearly intended to make it appear to the defense that the snap is not imminent. IMO this does not follow the direction that we're given every year to officiate "trick" plays to the strict letter of the rules with no leeway.
I do expect that we'll get some clear direction on this type of play, probably with this video as the play example, clarifying for us what is legal vs. illegal, prior to the 2016 season.
-
I wrote this case play as a member of the Editorial Committee back in 2001. My intent was to outlaw plays such as this and refrained from publishing a laundry list of illegal acts as if you list 100 a creative coach will come up with #101. IMHO, the brakes should be put on this play in pregame when explained by the coach.
While I deeply respect the 'original intent' in this :), I still think the black-letter of the rule and, indeed, the case play at worst make it ambiguous about this play but to me, make this play still legal.
The rule and case mention two elements required (both of which needed, since it says 'AND'): the snap not being imminent AND that there's a problem. Without another clarifying case or two, it's left up to each official what constitutes a 'problem'. Clearly, something up with the ball (the 'wrong ball' play) or missing a tee or something wrong with the clock would be a problem. But is the QB turning to the WR and yelling 'OMAHA' a problem? While that may or may not indicate the snap is not imminent, nothing in the case would indicate that normal football signals constitute a problem.
To me, without some further clarification or cases to further define what's a problem, that seems like normal football operations and thus a legal play.
As a thought experiment, let's just slightly tweak this play. Let's say QB is barking signals in a short shotgun/pistol formation. Single tailback behind him in a 2 point stance, standing up. QB stops yelling for a sec, then jogs out to the right in motion. Very quickly afterwards, ball is snapped to TB, who fakes a dive and throws to QB on an out route. Except for the QB yelling out a signal to the WR, this is nearly the same as this play. Is the yelling out of signals as the sole difference enough to say there's a problem? Not to me.