RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: TXMike on January 07, 2022, 09:57:20 PM
-
https://youtu.be/owTqHgau2Cc
-
https://youtu.be/owTqHgau2Cc
No.
-
Nope. 9-6-4d Illegal Participation — Using a pretended substitution to deceive.
-
Nope.
I still show this Michigan 2013 game to the group every year.
https://vimeo.com/80751002
-
From a mechanics perspective, would the wing on the offensive side hold iron cross until he is sure there is nothing hinky going on? Would that help identify/detect deceptive acts like this?
I know I hold it until I am reasonably confident that they've had time to do a fair exchange of players, just not sure what the correct mechanic is for this specifically, if there even is one - or, do we just do iron cross as normal, and just pay closer attention to the players on the field?
-
From a mechanics perspective, would the wing on the offensive side hold iron cross until he is sure there is nothing hinky going on? Would that help identify/detect deceptive acts like this?
I know I hold it until I am reasonably confident that they've had time to do a fair exchange of players, just not sure what the correct mechanic is for this specifically, if there even is one - or, do we just do iron cross as normal, and just pay closer attention to the players on the field?
As necessary key, to this nonsense working, is the faking player NOT LEAVING the field, common practice calls for stopping play when there is an injured player ON THE FIELD, so stopping EVERYTHING, so that injured player could be safely removed FROM the field, seems like a remedy for both safety, as well as stupidity prevention.
-
From a mechanics perspective, would the wing on the offensive side hold iron cross until he is sure there is nothing hinky going on? Would that help identify/detect deceptive acts like this?
I know I hold it until I am reasonably confident that they've had time to do a fair exchange of players, just not sure what the correct mechanic is for this specifically, if there even is one - or, do we just do iron cross as normal, and just pay closer attention to the players on the field?
NFHS doesn’t have the iron cross. If I’m on that side I’m throwing a flag at the snap for IP.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
From a mechanics perspective, would the wing on the offensive side hold iron cross until he is sure there is nothing hinky going on? Would that help identify/detect deceptive acts like this?
I know I hold it until I am reasonably confident that they've had time to do a fair exchange of players, just not sure what the correct mechanic is for this specifically, if there even is one - or, do we just do iron cross as normal, and just pay closer attention to the players on the field?
Federation doesn't use the "iron cross" mechanic because they are not required to let the defense match up. Under NCAA rules, I wouldn't keep holding up a cross, because at some point, the offense isn't substituting anymore. They have 11 out there and no one is going anywhere.
Mechanically, the H should be getting back off the field and into the white. And under both rule sets, A has fouled by running that hideout play. It's a straightforward BS play.
I hadn't seen that game online before, so I did a bit of research on it. According to the high school association's own write up about their finals games that year, the team that ran the hideout had told the officials about it before the game. So that's not good, obviously. We need to nip that in the bud. https://secondhalf.mhsaa.com/topics/football/falcons-soar-brink-d5-peak (https://secondhalf.mhsaa.com/topics/football/falcons-soar-brink-d5-peak)
The nice thing about video nowadays, and this forum as well, is that we can all learn without the pain of actually being involved in a particular game.
-
As necessary key, to this nonsense working, is the faking player NOT LEAVING the field, common practice calls for stopping play when there is an injured player ON THE FIELD, so stopping EVERYTHING, so that injured player could be safely removed FROM the field, seems like a remedy for both safety, as well as stupidity prevention.
Why make an injury up? There's a simple remedy in the rules. It's a 15 yd foul. Just call that.
-
Why make an injury up? There's a simple remedy in the rules. It's a 15 yd foul. Just call that.
In the video, the player coming off his holding his arm as if it's injured. A little bit of preventive officiating to "believe" the ruse to stop them from making a dumb mistake.
-
To be fair, I’m sure the covering official thought the “injury” issue was being solved by the substitution. Until it wasn’t. There’s no way to anticipate this was going to be a trick play until the moment it happened.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
In the video, the player coming off his holding his arm as if it's injured. A little bit of preventive officiating to "believe" the ruse to stop them from making a dumb mistake.
1. I'm not stopping the game clock for a player who can get off the field under his own power.
2. No one made a dumb mistake. They deliberately cheated.
-
I'm not defending the play at all, but I'm more of the mindset that if you have the chance to shut down an illegal trick play before it happens, you should. Maybe in this situation, by the time you realize what they were doing the ball was already snapped and therefore you couldn't shut it down and then you've got to flag it.
If you can stop somebody before they commit a major foul, preventative officiating says you should. If you can't stop it, then you have no choice but to call it.
There should have been a flag on this play, but more importantly there should have been a discussion beforehand to stop the play from being called in the first place.
-
IMHO, Case 9.9.1b would cover this as it was certainly an unfair act. I was the author of this case back in 2001 when I was a member or the Editorial Committee. The strong consensus was that this play should be shut down before the snap, if possible, or as soon as the act was recognized. USC on head coach and put a few seconds back on the clock if the play had gotten off.
I agree wholeheartedly with Ncwingman that this could/should be nipped in the bud if possible. In our pregame meeting, the coach should reveal this as a 'trick or unusual play' and then be advised as it being illegal.
-
Ralph, I'd be reluctant to use 9-9-1 when 9-6-4d specifically identifies the pretended substitution as a form of IP.
Case play 9.9.1b involves verbiage with a player on the field.
-
Ralph, I'd be reluctant to use 9-9-1 when 9-6-4d specifically identifies the pretended substitution as a form of IP.
Case play 9.9.1b involves verbiage with a player on the field.
The intent of 9.9.1b was that any action or verbiage would be considered illegal . "...However, ACTIONS or verbiage designed to confuse the defense into believing there is a problem and a snap isn't imminent is beyond the scope of sportsmanship and is illegal." I think that faking an injury is crossing the line without yelling "OUCH ;) ".
-
The intent of 9.9.1b was that any action or verbiage would be considered illegal . "...However, ACTIONS or verbiage designed to confuse the defense into believing there is a problem and a snap isn't imminent is beyond the scope of sportsmanship and is illegal." I think that faking an injury is crossing the line without yelling "OUCH ;) ".
I agree with your solution Ralph. What this play represents is a deliberate UNSPORTSMANLIKE effort and should be recognized as such (to avoid any other similar "bright" ideas). IP is a mistake, subject to similar penalty without appropriate condemnation.
-
This doesn’t sound like a “mistake.”
ART. 4 ... It is illegal participation:
d. To use a player, replaced player, substitute, coach, athletic trainer or other attendant in a substitution or pretended substitution to deceive opponents at or immediately before the snap or free kick.
Sounds like an intentional act to deceive. Also sounds exactly like what happened in the video I watched.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
The problem I have with invoking 9-9-1 is that it specifically refers to situations that have no rules coverage
ART. 1 ... A player or nonplayer or person(s) not subject to the rules shall not hinder play by an unfair act which has no specific rule coverage.
This play has a specific rule coverage. So I say use the rule to which the foul applies.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Faking an injury has no specific rules coverage and this was clearly a designed play by the Head Coach.
9-9-5...Neither team shall commit and act which, in the opinion of the referee, tends to make a travesty of the game.
As soon as the ball is snapped and you recognize what just happened, shut the play down and issue a UNS to the head coach!
Now, that being said, I agree with Ralph, in the pregame when you ask "Coach do you have any trick or unusual plays" if he tells ut it down and hand him a UNS! Hopefully he is smart enough not to overreact to the first UNS as should he, he shall receive a lovely parting gift.
-
Suppose the head coach had already earned one USC prior to this play. Invoking 9-9-1 now causes his ejection.
It’s my belief that, in our state, the officials would be sanctioned for misapplication of the rules due to the language of 9-6-4d, and any fine or suspension levied on the coach would be vacated.
-
Faking an injury has no specific rules coverage and this was clearly a designed play by the Head Coach.
9-9-5...Neither team shall commit and act which, in the opinion of the referee, tends to make a travesty of the game.
As soon as the ball is snapped and you recognize what just happened, shut the play down and issue a UNS to the head coach!
Now, that being said, I agree with Ralph, in the pregame when you ask "Coach do you have any trick or unusual plays" if he tells ut it down and hand him a UNS! Hopefully he is smart enough not to overreact to the first UNS as should he, he shall receive a lovely parting gift.
So answer me this: A is running tempo, B is gassed. B17 fakes an injury by falling down and grabbing his calf. Are you gonna invoke 9-9-1?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
So answer me this: A is running tempo, B is gassed. B17 fakes an injury by falling down and grabbing his calf. Are you gonna invoke 9-9-1?
How do you know B17 faked an injury by falling down and grabbing his calf?
I think there's a difference in what B17 did and what was in the original video. Faking an injury is unethical no matter how or when it happens, but we aren't able to determine whether or not a player has an injury when he falls down. I don't think anyone wants officials to start trying to determine whether or not a player is really injured...I know I don't. We all assumed the player in the video had an injury the first time we watched it and he was coming off the field holding his arm. Once it was determined that player was faking because he stayed in the game and was trying to use the substitution process to deceive, then we can throw the flag and give a UNS.
I haven't worked under NFHS rules in a long time so if this is wrong, please correct me. I think I would drop the flag and let the play go. Have the R announce, "UNS for using the substitution process to deceive. This penalty is charged to the head coach." If the coach has already gotten another UNS earlier in the game, well, he shouldn't have run this play.
On a similar subject, I've never understood why coaches won't ask about plays they come up with before ever trying to implement them. For instance, a local high school team practiced a "wrong tee" play many years ago. At the time, there were several teachers in the school district who were also football officials. Why wouldn't the head coach call one or two of those officials and ask, "Hey Bob. Is this play legal?"
-
How do you know B17 faked an injury by falling down and grabbing his calf?
I think there's a difference in what B17 did and what was in the original video. Faking an injury is unethical no matter how or when it happens, but we aren't able to determine whether or not a player has an injury when he falls down. I don't think anyone wants officials to start trying to determine whether or not a player is really injured...I know I don't. We all assumed the player in the video had an injury the first time we watched it and he was coming off the field holding his arm. Once it was determined that player was faking because he stayed in the game and was trying to use the substitution process to deceive, then we can throw the flag and give a UNS.
I haven't worked under NFHS rules in a long time so if this is wrong, please correct me. I think I would drop the flag and let the play go. Have the R announce, "UNS for using the substitution process to deceive. This penalty is charged to the head coach." If the coach has already gotten another UNS earlier in the game, well, he shouldn't have run this play.
On a similar subject, I've never understood why coaches won't ask about plays they come up with before ever trying to implement them. For instance, a local high school team practiced a "wrong tee" play many years ago. At the time, there were several teachers in the school district who were also football officials. Why wouldn't the head coach call one or two of those officials and ask, "Hey Bob. Is this play legal?"
I agree we can’t and don’t need to get into the realm of trying to decipher real vs fake injuries. That’s my point. If the only reason we can apply 9-9-1 to this situation is the fake injury, then it doesn’t apply because we don’t know for certain the injury is fake. He may have really had a cramp in his pinkie that got better at the snap.
Taking the injury out of the equation, we have specific rules coverage for this situation. You suggested as much in your proposed solution. “UNS for using the substitution process to deceive.” The only problem with your solution is that’s not the penalty for using the substitution process to deceive. The proper penalty is IP. While some may feel a UNS to be warranted, we can’t make one up just because we don’t like the action. We can’t just hit the coach with an unsportsmanlike conduct foul whenever we want.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I agree we can’t and don’t need to get into the realm of trying to decipher real vs fake injuries. That’s my point. If the only reason we can apply 9-9-1 to this situation is the fake injury, then it doesn’t apply because we don’t know for certain the injury is fake. He may have really had a cramp in his pinkie that got better at the snap.
Taking the injury out of the equation, we have specific rules coverage for this situation. You suggested as much in your proposed solution. “UNS for using the substitution process to deceive.” The only problem with your solution is that’s not the penalty for using the substitution process to deceive. The proper penalty is IP. While some may feel a UNS to be warranted, we can’t make one up just because we don’t like the action. We can’t just hit the coach with an unsportsmanlike conduct foul whenever we want.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
This is another example PROVING, "One size NEVER fits all". As suggested, there are multiple bullets to fire available. The covering official decides which bullet to shoot, based on what is SEEN, what is BELIEVED to be the case in this ONE, UNIQUE situation in this ONE, UNIQUE game.
If the conclusion is someone (player/coach) made a dumb MISTAKE and simply did/allowed something prohibited by rule, IP might well be the chosen bullet fired. If, however the official's conclusion (in this unique case) was a deliberate intent to deceive, that may require a different bullet. The choice of which bullet to fire rests with the calling official (EXCLUSIVELY). Keep in mind, however the R is empowered to review and, RARELY, WHEN NECESSARY, modify that decision.
As for a coach, who has already been cited for UNS. Big mistake he can ponder on his way OFF the field, knowing his behavior will be a major portion of the game report, he will likely have to answer for. The two most important factors officials are designed to protect are Player Safety & Sportsmanship, and the rules are designed to promote BOTH.
-
Taking the injury out of the equation, we have specific rules coverage for this situation. You suggested as much in your proposed solution. “UNS for using the substitution process to deceive.” The only problem with your solution is that’s not the penalty for using the substitution process to deceive. The proper penalty is IP. While some may feel a UNS to be warranted, we can’t make one up just because we don’t like the action. We can’t just hit the coach with an unsportsmanlike conduct foul whenever we want.
My mistake there. I made the assumption a UNS was the penalty.
-
This is another example PROVING, "One size NEVER fits all". As suggested, there are multiple bullets to fire available. The covering official decides which bullet to shoot, based on what is SEEN, what is BELIEVED to be the case in this ONE, UNIQUE situation in this ONE, UNIQUE game.
If the conclusion is someone (player/coach) made a dumb MISTAKE and simply did/allowed something prohibited by rule, IP might well be the chosen bullet fired. If, however the official's conclusion (in this unique case) was a deliberate intent to deceive, that may require a different bullet. The choice of which bullet to fire rests with the calling official (EXCLUSIVELY). Keep in mind, however the R is empowered to review and, RARELY, WHEN NECESSARY, modify that decision.
As for a coach, who has already been cited for UNS. Big mistake he can ponder on his way OFF the field, knowing his behavior will be a major portion of the game report, he will likely have to answer for. The two most important factors officials are designed to protect are Player Safety & Sportsmanship, and the rules are designed to promote BOTH.
I agree with everything you said there Al. But I don’t see the judgment between a mistake and/or a deliberate intentional act mentioned in the rules. In fact, the wording of 9-6-4d suggests and intentional act as opposed to a mistake.
d. To use a player, replaced player, substitute, coach, athletic trainer or other attendant in a substitution or pretended substitution to deceive opponents at or immediately before the snap or free kick.
Seems like hat would have to be a deliberate intentional act to deceive. From which the foul is IP.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
When Case 9.9.1 was written, the major concern was a rash of trick plays that many considered unsportsmanlike. While 9-6-4d could be applied, it was felt that a stronger message that these types of plays would not be allowed in football with an UNC. Stopping it in it's tracks was the best solution, as an USC during a live ball would provide succeeding spot enforcement. In the OP it is obvious that the play is orchestrated as the 'replaced' player appears to be in pain until he reaches a few inches from the sidelines. I assume his 'replacement' must be the 10th player, as they may have set this up by running the previous play with only 10.
The coaches quickly change to cheerleaders as his quick recovery allows him to recover for an easy touchdown pass.
Case 9.9.1 was written to provide blanket coverage for plays such as this and if we had listed 100 variations , some creative coach would could come up with #101. If I was a coach, a couple I might try ::)...
(1) QB, under snapper, steps back and hold his nose : "Whew, the center just 'cut one'. Give me a second to git ma' breath :puke: !"
Ball snapped directly to tail back ^good.
(2) QB, from shotgun, points toward B's end zone and yells :" WOW, the prom queen's clothes just fell off >:D ..."
Baa snapped to tail back ^good.
I don't think I wanta' be a coach tR:oLl .
For those that choose 9-6-4d in lieu of USC, that would be good. I just feel that holding the head coach accountable may silence other coaches that are also dreaming up such and shutting the play down before it makes the 'highlight reel' will remove any glory from an unsportsmanlike act. It's easier for us to make the call after seeing the video over..over...and over ::).
^flag ^flag ^flag ^flag ^flag
-
I agree with everything you said there Al. But I don’t see the judgment between a mistake and/or a deliberate intentional act mentioned in the rules. In fact, the wording of 9-6-4d suggests and intentional act as opposed to a mistake.
d. To use a player, replaced player, substitute, coach, athletic trainer or other attendant in a substitution or pretended substitution to deceive opponents at or immediately before the snap or free kick.
Seems like hat would have to be a deliberate intentional act to deceive. From which the foul is IP.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
JUDGING and DECIDING whether THIS UNIQUE INSTANCE was either a "deliberate intentional act" or unfortunate "MISTAKE" (confusion, impulse, ignorance of the rule, miscommunication between player-coach, teenage impulse, etc.) is what officials are paid the BIG BUCKS for. There is NO AUTOMATIC, SINGLE answer, it's all about what is judged appropriate for THAT specific situation, a corrective penalty or a HAMMER by the covering official (subject to a possible "Appeals level" reversal by the Referee.)
EVERY such situation is UNIQUE, and deserves a UNIQUE judgment based on that situation ALONE.
-
JUDGING and DECIDING whether THIS UNIQUE INSTANCE was either a "deliberate intentional act" or unfortunate "MISTAKE" (confusion, impulse, ignorance of the rule, miscommunication between player-coach, teenage impulse, etc.) is what officials are paid the BIG BUCKS for. There is NO AUTOMATIC, SINGLE answer, it's all about what is judged appropriate for THAT specific situation, a corrective penalty or a HAMMER by the covering official (subject to a possible "Appeals level" reversal by the Referee.)
EVERY such situation is UNIQUE, and deserves a UNIQUE judgment based on that situation ALONE.
Well, I tried.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Again, Faking an injury has no specific Rules Book coverage.
This then involves leads us to Rule 9-9-5
This ruling is supported 110% by CASEBOOK 9.9.1 SITUATION B
This is to be a UNS on the Head coach at the snap and the play should be shut down!
And, Ill go one step further! Ifwe discussed it in the pregame and he was told it would be penalized, and, he ran it anyway,
I will consider his actions a FLAGRANT ACT and he will receive a lovely parting gift.
This is bullsh*t football, there is no place for it in NFHS play, and it shall be penalized accordingly.
I understand why and where you are hanging your hat, Calhoun, but this is, and always will be, a UNS ACT!
-
Please explain how this supports either faking an injury, or using the substitution process to deceive opponents.
9.9.1 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.
I will say this case perfectly describes the types of situations that have no rules coverage. But in the video, the player holding his hand is a very minuscule piece of the puzzle. The fact is that A pretended to substitute for him and deceived the defense by using the substitution process. It’s IP all the way.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
While I certainly appreciate the history behind the rules, there is no way any official not privy to that history would ever come up with UNS if they were on the field officiating this play. If you guys want it officiated as UNS, you need to write it down in the rule book because we can’t go by unwritten tradition and intent.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
While I certainly appreciate the history behind the rules, there is no way any official not privy to that history would ever come up with UNS if they were on the field officiating this play. If you guys want it officiated as UNS, you need to write it down in the rule book because we can’t go by unwritten tradition and intent.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Ask and Answered,
Foul is: UNS to Head Coach
Penalty is: 15 yards - Previous Spot
Applicable written Rule is: 9-9-5;
Applicable written Casebook Play is: 9.9.1 Situation B
-
Ask and Answered,
Foul is: UNS to Head Coach
Penalty is: 15 yards - Previous Spot
Applicable written Rule is: 9-9-5;
Applicable written Casebook Play is: 9.9.1 Situation B
There are a lot of different reasons IP can happen, most (if not all) involve various misinterpretations of the rule or mental errors occurring in the "heat of battle". The play/video in question (which may have been from before the rules were changed/expanded to SPECIFICALL PROHIBIT behavior designed to "cheat" an opponent) is a direct contradiction to the idea/notion of honest competition & "sportsmanship".
It's extremely difficult to consider this play happened without the knowledge & blessing of the HC, and the behavior this kind of intent encourages sets the consequences earned above that of "honest mistake" and should be recognized as such, so that the HC understands he is halfway to disqualification (which in most instances opens a door to possible post game sanctions) and underscores a bright line of UNACCEPTABLE behavior & example.
If there is legitimate doubt as to whether this action was a deliberate attempt to ignore sportsmanship responsibilities, IP may well be an applicable alternative,but even then, a stern reminder of those responsibilities, and additional consequences of such behavior would/should be DELIVERED.
The CHOICE of appropriate penalty is decided by the covering official, subject to possible review by the Referee, but that decision is relevant to the ongoing INTEGRITY OF THE GAME BEING PLAYED. Tolerance of UNETHICAL behavior by NFHS level players may be a consequence of inexperience, or personal development, but does not extend itself to adult supervision.
-
Yelling doesn't change the fact that there is specific rules coverage for an act of using the substitution process to deceive.
If one wants to call it USC, its on them. If one wants the rep of being an "MSU alum", have at it.
-
Ask and Answered,
Foul is: UNS to Head Coach
Penalty is: 15 yards - Previous Spot
Applicable written Rule is: 9-9-5;
Applicable written Casebook Play is: 9.9.1 Situation B
So you’re using a caseplay relating to 9-9-1 to prove application of rule 9-9-5?
Please explain how any official outside this forum is even going to know the history behind 9-9-1 to be able to make the connection to USC. Especially when a plain viewing of the video clearly reveals a pretended substitution.
If y’all gonna make such a jump and intend for it to be official, you need to put it in writing.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
There are a lot of different reasons IP can happen, most (if not all) involve various misinterpretations of the rule or mental errors occurring in the "heat of battle". The play/video in question (which may have been from before the rules were changed/expanded to SPECIFICALL PROHIBIT behavior designed to "cheat" an opponent) is a direct contradiction to the idea/notion of honest competition & "sportsmanship".
It's extremely difficult to consider this play happened without the knowledge & blessing of the HC, and the behavior this kind of intent encourages sets the consequences earned above that of "honest mistake" and should be recognized as such, so that the HC understands he is halfway to disqualification (which in most instances opens a door to possible post game sanctions) and underscores a bright line of UNACCEPTABLE behavior & example.
If there is legitimate doubt as to whether this action was a deliberate attempt to ignore sportsmanship responsibilities, IP may well be an applicable alternative,but even then, a stern reminder of those responsibilities, and additional consequences of such behavior would/should be DELIVERED.
The CHOICE of appropriate penalty is decided by the covering official, subject to possible review by the Referee, but that decision is relevant to the ongoing INTEGRITY OF THE GAME BEING PLAYED. Tolerance of UNETHICAL behavior by NFHS level players may be a consequence of inexperience, or personal development, but does not extend itself to adult supervision.
If you will be open minded enough to investigate, you will discover that 9-6-4d clearly covers an intentional act, not a simple mistake. The comparison of a mistake versus an intentional act is a figment of your imagination you conjured up.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Another reason to penalize this as a live-ball foul under 9-4-6d is to not deprive the defense of the opportunity for a sack or turnover.
-
Another reason to penalize this as a live-ball foul under 9-4-6d is to not deprive the defense of the opportunity for a sack or turnover.
And more importantly, especially for those who couldn't get this shut down, applying USC as a foul means you've got live ball treated as a dead ball so the score would count. A hard core vet might be able to get this shut down at the snap but I'm willing to bet for the vast majority of officials, this play is getting off.
Unless you're going to really climb out on the limb with the "God clause" and wipe out the score, 9-6-4d enforcement is previous spot so bye-bye TD.
-
And more importantly, especially for those who couldn't get this shut down, applying USC as a foul means you've got live ball treated as a dead ball so the score would count. A hard core vet might be able to get this shut down at the snap but I'm willing to bet for the vast majority of officials, this play is getting off.
Unless you're going to really climb out on the limb with the "God clause" and wipe out the score, 9-6-4d enforcement is previous spot so bye-bye TD.
Also, it would be extremely difficult to argue USC before the snap, because until the act is committed, there is no crime. The absolute worst case scenario would be to suspect this as a trick play, throw a flag before the snap only to discover the players finger bent back against the back of his hand.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
We sometimes shut plays down after they have started, consider encroachment or free kick violations. Yes, you could apply 9-6-04d and treat it as a live ball foul. Applying Case 9.9.1b would accomplish two things : It would result in an USC on the coach and halfway to his car/bus/whatever; It would also stop the, "OH, what an exciting play...and those mean refs took it away :'( !". IMHO, the player that was pretending to be injured and heading for the sidelines crossed the IP/USC line while it might not cross yours. Remember, if you do choose to shut the play down, be sure a reset the clock by adding a few seconds. This will indicate what just happened really didn't. :o
And, yes, be sure you have a trick play before you shut it down. 8]
-
Yea, I’m afraid the free kick infraction change sent us down a rabbit hole of no return. We may as well get rid of the “no foul causes the ball to become dead” fundamental.
I agree the play in question has no place in football. I disagree with simply inventing an enforcement to deal with it. If the powers that be want this shut down and called USC on the head coach, there needs to be official wording In the rule book to support it. Not some guy on a message forum posting “asked and answered.”
I would also be very leery of adding fake injury to the language because of obvious liability and verification concerns.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
CalhounLJ -
I'm curious, are their any NFHS rules you actually support?
- Some guy on a message forum!
-
CalhounLJ -
I'm curious, are their any NFHS rules you actually support?
- Some guy on a message forum!
I actually support them all. It’s those invented I have a problem with.
The dig was out of line and I apologize, but the truth is, you just can’t dictate interpretations unsupported by the rules on a message board and expect them to carry weight. Take this play for example. Suppose I buy into this proposed interpretation, go to my chapter and tell my guys this is the way it’s supposed to be called. When they push back, as is bound to happen, what official support would I have? Basically, all I can do is tell them, some guy in a message board said so. As I told Ralph, I agree the play has no 0lace in football. The problem is the solution you’re proposing won’t work with the rules as written.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
If you will be open minded enough to investigate, you will discover that 9-6-4d clearly covers an intentional act, not a simple mistake. The comparison of a mistake versus an intentional act is a figment of your imagination you conjured up.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Openminded? Do you mean, "there's only ONE way, and it automatically fits EVERY ONE of a bazillion possibilities? I don't have my Officials Manual handy, but am very familiar, and have referenced it's advice before, that Officials must possess (and utilize) common sense, and understanding of the reason for a rule in applying judgment to fit the UNIQUE situation they are observing.
In the situation being discussed, there are 2 VALID options to consider, (IP and/or USC) regarding this SPECIFIC & PARTICULAR occurrence, EACH of which specifically references BOTH behaviors. The covering official (subject to the concurrence (and possible overriding by the Referee) judges what he observes (in THIS situation) and renders a UNIQUE judgment, rather than the routine of "one size fits all". That official is provided the luxury (and burden) of choosing the applicable foul. Hopefully, THAT official's choice will best fit THAT situation.
You decide on your choice, I'll stick with mine.
-
Knowing fully well that I will get admonished and told to keep my nose out things on the NFHS forum, I am going comment, anyway.
In the video example provided, how does "injury" become a factor, whatsoever? If we don't interrupt the game for an injury, then any pain/discomfort that a player may be suffering is of no consequence to us as officials. The player in question (wearing an eligible number) appeared to be trying to leave the field, under his own power, and, until the last moment, was moving to to leave the field in a reasonably direct and expeditious manner. While he is moving toward the sideline, a substitute (also wearing an eligible number) for that team runs onto the field from their sideline, 'apparently' to replace the player that appeared to be leaving the field. There was no reason to interrupt the game for the guy that appeared to be leaving the field - even if we had a player count for team A, and we know he is one of 11. For all we know, they will send in another sub for him when he gets off the field.
So, then, when this guy gets near the sideline, he stops - you hear coaches telling him to "stay right there" - the ball gets snapped, and this guy, unopposed by an opponent, runs downfield to catch an apparent touchdown pass.
This is a deliberate use of a "hideout" play, and is patently unsportsmanlike conduct. Not anything for which we would interrupt the game for an "injury," fake or real. Live-ball foul, 15 yards from the previous spot, repeat the down.
As to whom to assign the foul, that may be different for NFHS than other rule sets. In NCAA, this gets assigned to the "hideout," player (as much as we might want to assign it to a coach). If I'm a player, and I already have one UNS, and my coach tells me to run that play, I'm gonna be p-----, uh, annoyed.
Cheating. Pure and simple.
-
Knowing fully well that I will get admonished and told to keep my nose out things on the NFHS forum, I am going comment, anyway.
In the video example provided, how does "injury" become a factor, whatsoever? If we don't interrupt the game for an injury, then any pain/discomfort that a player may be suffering is of no consequence to us as officials. The player in question (wearing an eligible number) appeared to be trying to leave the field, under his own power, and, until the last moment, was moving to to leave the field in a reasonably direct and expeditious manner. While he is moving toward the sideline, a substitute (also wearing an eligible number) for that team runs onto the field from their sideline, 'apparently' to replace the player that appeared to be leaving the field. There was no reason to interrupt the game for the guy that appeared to be leaving the field - even if we had a player count for team A, and we know he is one of 11. For all we know, they will send in another sub for him when he gets off the field.
So, then, when this guy gets near the sideline, he stops - you hear coaches telling him to "stay right there" - the ball gets snapped, and this guy, unopposed by an opponent, runs downfield to catch an apparent touchdown pass.
This is a deliberate use of a "hideout" play, and is patently unsportsmanlike conduct. Not anything for which we would interrupt the game for an "injury," fake or real. Live-ball foul, 15 yards from the previous spot, repeat the down.
As to whom to assign the foul, that may be different for NFHS than other rule sets. In NCAA, this gets assigned to the "hideout," player (as much as we might want to assign it to a coach). If I'm a player, and I already have one UNS, and my coach tells me to run that play, I'm gonna be p-----, uh, annoyed.
Cheating. Pure and simple.
Fair assessment. Only difference is the penalty for the two codes. In NFHS this is BY RULE Illegal Participation.
Using the substitution or pretended substitution to deceive the defense. 15yd penalty from the previous spot replay the down.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Fair assessment. Only difference is the penalty for the two codes. In NFHS this is BY RULE Illegal Participation.
Using the substitution or pretended substitution to deceive the defense. 15yd penalty from the previous spot replay the down.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Again, considering EVERY situation is unique, what is the language in the UNS rule that prohibits it's application in THIS instance?
-
Again, considering EVERY situation is unique, what is the language in the UNS rule that prohibits it's application in THIS instance?
Which UNS rule are you speaking of?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
which has no specific rule coverage.
Well there is this.
But then you know that already.
-
The Case Book is considered an extension of the Rules Book. GENERAL INFORMATION (under Forward) : "The interpretations and rulings for all situations have been approved by the NFHS Football Rules Committee and are official."While I agree that 9-6-4d could be applied to the OP, I would be tempted to apply the more severe 9.9.1B. IMHO, the coach when asked for unusual or trick plays, should have presented this , if not that would be considered unsportsmanlike by me. The 'replaced' player, leaving the field while holding his hand/arm/whatever caused B not to worry about coverage as his 'substitute' is entering. Shutting the play down before it can illegally result in a touchdown will prevent the :!# pHiNzuP ::) of a play we will need to take away. ^flag
Maybe I've just turned into a grumpy ole' guy tR:oLl
-
Which UNS rule are you speaking of?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sorry, NFHS, either players or non-players. I'm traveling & don't have my NFHS Rule/Case/Official's Manual books with me.
-
Shutting the play down before it can illegally result in a touchdown
I get that, Ralph, and it make sense. However, as I mentioned earlier this is theory. In real live action, I'm willing to wager that a huge majority of officials are going to hesitate to figure out just WTH is going on. If that play gets off and a score is made, the WH is really going to have stretch 9-9-1 to include wiping out the score. IP is the safer option and the enforcement doesn't require the referee to turn into Stretch Armstrong.
-
A8 pretended to be a replaced player leaving the field. Clearly a violation of 9.6.4d, Illegal Participation, 15 yards, previous spot.
But, the faked injury adds another dimension. It was "designed to confuse the defense into believing there (was) a problem" and that A8 was out of the game. UNS is reasonable, CB 9.9.1 Situation B. Even if the flag is not dropped until after the play and the officials talk about what happened, the foul occurred before the snap and the correct enforcement spot is the previous spot.
(We don't have to throw a flag or blow a whistle to get the call right. We can talk about it and reconstruct the play to get it correct, and that can include a pre-snap foul. It might appear awkward, but getting it right is all that really matters.)
I am not saying you are wrong if you don't want to penalize for UNS. I am saying either is correct.
The only officials who are truly wrong were those on the field who were told about the play by the coach pregame and didn't know either rule!
-
A8 pretended to be a replaced player leaving the field. Clearly a violation of 9.6.4d, Illegal Participation, 15 yards, previous spot.
But, the faked injury adds another dimension. It was "designed to confuse the defense into believing there (was) a problem" and that A8 was out of the game. UNS is reasonable, CB 9.9.1 Situation B. Even if the flag is not dropped until after the play and the officials talk about what happened, the foul occurred before the snap and the correct enforcement spot is the previous spot.
(We don't have to throw a flag or blow a whistle to get the call right. We can talk about it and reconstruct the play to get it correct, and that can include a pre-snap foul. It might appear awkward, but getting it right is all that really matters.)
I am not saying you are wrong if you don't want to penalize for UNS. I am saying either is correct.
The only officials who are truly wrong were those on the field who were told about the play by the coach pregame and didn't know either rule!
So are you saying that the ONLY factor that elevates this to USC is alleged fake injury?
Also, I still contend 9-9-1 is not applicable in this case because it stipulates that it’s reserved for cases with no rules coverage. This play has rules coverage. A used a pretended substitution to deceive the defense in violation of 9-6-4d. The deception was not that there was a problem and therefore the snap was not imminent. The deception was that a player who had been subbed out was leaving the field. He didn’t.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
The only officials who are truly wrong were those on the field who were told about the play by the coach pregame and didn't know either rule!
My experience has been the play the coach tells you about rarely works out like he claims, which is usually what makes it illegal. One of the main reason I never ask. I'd rather depend on my experience and rules knowledge than the coach's fantasy explanation of how he envisions it.
-
So are you saying that the ONLY factor that elevates this to USC is alleged fake injury?
IMO, faking the injury elevates it to UNS. If A8 just jogs toward the sideline there is a good chance someone on defense has eyes on him. Faking the injury sends a message, I am hurt. You don't have to worry about me. I couldn't possible run a route and catch a pass. I can hardly get off the field.
Also, I still contend 9-9-1 is not applicable in this case because it stipulates that it’s reserved for cases with no rules coverage. This play has rules coverage.
I looked all over the rule book for "faking an injury to gain an advantage" and couldn't find anything. Seems to me it falls into the same category as other things I have seen on video like faking a heart attack or being shot and falling down, a series of somersaults toward the sideline, getting down on all fours and barking. Seems like they are all pre-snap UNS. Language in the case book justifies the call.
-
IMHO I've got to go with the UNS here. There are 3 clear and distinct components to this play as shown in the video.
1. The "hideout" that would trigger a "simple' IP call
2. The clear "faking an injury" to gain an advantage that as noted has no specific rules coverage other than it's coupled with a substitution violation
3. And the most unsportsmanlike of all, the coaching staff, directly in front of (or behind) a wing official, actively participating in this charade.
IMHO calling a "simple" IP here does a MAJOR disservice to the entire sportsmanship focus of NFHS rules. As shown here in this video clip, this is a coached, practiced, and flagrant unsportsmanlike act. I'd go with a UNS on the coach based on the active participation in INTENTIONAL violation of the rules.
-
Legit question. Is there any way we could throw two flags here? One for IP, the other for unfair act, making a travesty of the game? I won’t rehash my objection to 9-9-1, but I sincerely believe it doesn’t apply. However, there is a good argument for 9-9-5.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I don't believe that faking the injury rises to the level of "travesty."
And I am not arguing that you are incorrect. Either IP or UNS is 15 from the previous spot, so the result is mostly the same.
-
Either IP or UNS is 15 from the previous spot, so the result is mostly the same.
Unsportsmanlike is succeeding spot, which is why I keep making the point that IP is the better option here.
-
Unsportsmanlike is succeeding spot, which is why I keep making the point that IP is the better option here.
Yes, except the UNS foul occurred before the ball was snapped. So the ball was dead and the play never happened.
-
Yes, except the UNS foul occurred before the ball was snapped. So the ball was dead and the play never happened.
Except it didn’t. The fake injury wasn’t discovered until the player participated at the snap.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Except it didn’t. The fake injury wasn’t discovered until the player participated at the snap.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Yes it did occur BEFORE the snap right in the lap of the wing official. Again, IMHO this should have been a blow & throw the instant that the coaching staff made it 100% clear that they were participating in this charade. That was BEFORE the snap.
-
As shown here in this video clip, this is a coached, practiced, and flagrant unsportsmanlike act. IMHO I've got to go with the UNS here.
So are you also advocating ejection of the head coach?
-
IMHO this should have been a blow & throw the instant
But it wasn't and in all probability the vast majority of HS officials wouldn't have either. (And I'm NOT including me as one that would have necessarily caught it in time either.)
-
But it wasn't and in all probability the vast majority of HS officials wouldn't have either. (And I'm NOT including me as one that would have necessarily caught it in time either.)
I believe that you are doing all of us a significant disservice by saying that. IMHO most of us would have caught this as it is clearly pre-planned and coached made obvious by the verbal component. And again, IMHO I’m 100% OK with a flag immediately when it’s realized what’s going on here. IMHO there is no legal play here given this very specific set of circumstances.
-
So are you also advocating ejection of the head coach?
Just for clarification, under NFHS the calling official decides (subject to agreement by his referee) whether the infraction was UNS or FLAGRANT UNS (which would produce instant disqualification. If this was the 2nd UNS against that coach, disqualification is automatic. I suspect that sequence is intended to recognize the potential of emotion, but emphasize such continued behavior is totally unacceptable.
I presume the "leeway" afforded (UNS or FLAGRANT UNS) is provided to allow the covering official's judgment, of what is being observed in the particular and unique circumstance at hand, to assess the resulting decision, which especially in UNS-Coach situations, is routinely discussed, and assessed, with the Referee.
In either conclusion, a detailed explanation of the event and decision process should be included in the game report, for possible application of additional (post game) consequences, by higher authorities. The "Hammer" of additional consequences caused by either the declaration of "Flagrant" or Post game assessment consequences, is partially designed as a deterrent to prevent a repetition, or escalation, of inappropriate behavior.
-
IMHO most of us would have caught this as it is clearly pre-planned and coached made obvious by the verbal component.
This was a Virginia state semi-final so one can surmise that the officials assigned were better than average. They didn't catch it prior to the snap, hence my assertion that the vast majority would not either.
I understand the position that it is unsportsmanlike and agree that the behavior of faking an injury and the coach saying "stay here" falls into that category but components of IP exist also given the sub player coming off the sideline, thus using the sub process to deceive.
Given that the officials actually working the game didn't catch it, had they conferred afterward and we don't know if they did, an IP ruling would allow the opportunity to mark off 15 from the previous spot and wipe out the score.
We are dealing with conjecture vs. reality. Yes, blowing it dead and assessing USC would be ideal, but that isn't what happened.
-
This was a Virginia state semi-final so one can surmise that the officials assigned were better than average. They didn't catch it prior to the snap, hence my assertion that the vast majority would not either.
So this TD was allowed to stand? ??? Or did they call IP after the play ended and replay the down?
-
According to the WAVY-TV station video and article, the score stood. It put white up 21-7. They won 35-7.
I have merged the sideline video from the OP with two media clips I located online.
https://youtu.be/rg5mtUwKfv0
-
I don't believe that faking the injury rises to the level of "travesty."
The rules do not attempt to list all possible forms of unsportsmanlike conduct for which the act might be penalized,
Instead all unsportsmanlike conduct acts are prohibited. Game official are instructed to penalize these types of unsportsmanlike conduct consistently and without hesitating. (From the NFHS Handbook)
Faking an injury to deceive your opponent into believing the snap is not imminent,
is unsporting and indeed (arguably) rises to the level of making a travesty of the game!
For supporting wording from the NFHS, look no further than the "COMMENT" found in CASEBOOK Play 9.9.1 SITUATION B
Respectfully submitted,
- Some guy on a message forum!
-
Yes it did occur BEFORE the snap right in the lap of the wing official. Again, IMHO this should have been a blow & throw the instant that the coaching staff made it 100% clear that they were participating in this charade. That was BEFORE the snap.
We are watching two different clips then.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
The rules do not attempt to list all possible forms of unsportsmanlike conduct for which the act might be penalized,
Instead all unsportsmanlike conduct acts are prohibited. Game official are instructed to penalize these types of unsportsmanlike conduct consistently and without hesitating. (From the NFHS Handbook)
Faking an injury to deceive your opponent into believing the snap is not imminent,
is unsporting and indeed (arguably) rises to the level of making a travesty of the game!
For supporting wording from the NFHS, look no further than the "COMMENT" found in CASEBOOK Play 9.9.1 SITUATION B
Respectfully submitted,
- Some guy on a message forum!
Faking the injury didn’t do anything to make the defense believe the snap was not forthcoming. If anything, faking the injury gave A a “valid” reason to substitute. B was not caught off guard by the snap. They were caught off guard by a player they assumed had subbed off.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Respectfully submitted,
- Some guy on a message forum!
[/quote]
For the record, that’s really all you (or any of us) are. All these opinions Carry no official weight whatsoever. I’ve already apologized for the dig. Get over it.
-
After FURTHER and FURTHER review by the Replay official.... IT APPEARS THAT....
* The 'injured' player was in the backfield as HL is a couple of yards beyond.
* The HL was on the sidelines and in clear view of the 'razzle-dazzle'.
* This was a 7-man crew.
* There was no sign of any foul ^flag called.
While we all have had 'brain freeze' and realized we may have missed a call, one/all of our crewmates will come thru and correctly apply the proper rule.
I STILL PONDER....
* Did the officials confer as to play being legal ^talk ^talk ^talk yEs: ?
* Did B's coach ask for a ref/coach conference to discuss it's legality ?
* How many watching this considered it 'razzle-dazzle' :puke:.
-
* How many watching this considered it 'razzle-dazzle' :puke:.
I can't find that term in any of the NFHS rules? ??? ;D
That must mean it's a non-defined rules violation? :laugh:
-
Did the officials confer as to play being legal ^talk ^talk ^talk yEs: ?
* Did B's coach ask for a ref/coach conference to discuss it's legality ?
I found the game on NFHS Network so I will pull the clip later today and we might can see what the aftermath was.
Pure speculation on my part but it appears to me that the HL looked right at A8 so I'm wondering if at a minimum he got tipped off prior to the play. We have no idea if this was brought up in the pre-game conference, how it was presented by the coach if it was, and what the referee and rest of the crew said as a response. With no context, which is what video lacks a lot of the time, we can only guess but it is obviously an illegal play and should have been flagged at some point. One would hope that someone in a state semi-final 7 person crew would be able to say "wait a $#@!&%+ minute".
Plays like this usually have repercussions. Perhaps someone from Virginia will be able to hear about it and give an update.
It is definitely a learning tool to show each of our associations. I've already put the clip that I made up on our YouTube channel and forwarded to our RSO and state AC.
-
https://vimeo.com/667308541/330c16011f
The play in question is a 2nd down play so I started the recording with the 1st down play as I wanted to see how the substitution was worked from the standpoint of how many players did A have. I began to think of the prospect that A might have had 12 on the field.
A runs their first down play with 11 players with 4 backs. The right HB goes downfield, hits the ground and then goes off to his sideline when the play ends so we now have 10 players for A. The QB, who ran the ball towards the home sideline is the one feigning injury and runs towards his sideline and stops inbounds. As he is appearing to run off, another sub runs on to make 11 A players.
2nd down is the TD play. After the score, the BJ appears to confer with the HL but that is the extend of any officials conferring. We do not see any of the home team staff being overly demonstrative or approaching the officials to discuss the play. I cut the video off as the BJ prepares for the subsequent kickoff.
It would appear that the crew just kicked it and B had no clue any of this was illegal.
-
I found the game on NFHS Network so I will pull the clip later today and we might can see what the aftermath was.
I am curious as what happened on the previous down. I think we've all been assuming that Team A only had 11 players on the field during the down in question. That is probably a relatively safe assumption. But, after the previous down, another A player must have left the field, to make a player vacancy for the substitute that did run onto the field. (Unless Team A played with only 10 players on the previous down??? I suppose it could have happened.)
If this was a crew of 7, and a Team A player left the field after the previous down, the deep wing on that side should have observed that, which should have raised a red flag for him, i.e., he should expect to see a substitute come off the sideline. Well, a sub did come off the sideline. So, all is good, except that the guy holding his wrist is 'apparently' leaving the field. Again, this should have raised a red flag for the deep sideline guy, in terms of expecting to see another substitute come off the sideline to replace this guy that appears to be leaving the field. When he doesn't see a sub, but sees the player stop near the sideline, he should now be on high alert for a 'hideout' play.
Apparently, the specific rule covering this action is unclear in NFHS, as well as whether it is a live-ball foul or a dead-ball foul. But, it appears that everyone agrees that it is illegal, and that is the most important thing. Regardless of which rule set under which the game is being played, this is an egregious act of illegal deception. Call it unsportsmanlike conduct, call it illegal participation - but do not allow the score, and hang 15 on 'em at the previous spot (if live-ball), or succeeding spot (if dead-ball). As I have said before, this is cheating - plain and simple.
Note: There is deception in football. Like, faking a hand off; almost everybody on the team running in one direction while the BC runs in the other direction; faking a kick and running/passing/handing the ball; signaling for a fair catch and faking like you are catching the ball and letting it bounce into the end zone. But, hideouts, fumblerooskis, concealing the ball in your clothing, bounce-backward pass-pretend-it-was-incomplete-forward-pass plays, etc., are simply illegal deception.
Let's have the courage to make these calls.
-
https://vimeo.com/667308541/330c16011f
The play in question is a 2nd down play so I started the recording with the 1st down play as I wanted to see how the substitution was worked from the standpoint of how many players did A have. I began to think of the prospect that A might have had 12 on the field.
A runs their first down play with 11 players with 4 backs. The right HB goes downfield, hits the ground and then goes off to his sideline when the play ends so we now have 10 players for A. The QB, who ran the ball towards the home sideline is the one feigning injury and runs towards his sideline and stops inbounds. As he is appearing to run off, another sub runs on to make 11 A players.
2nd down is the TD play. After the score, the BJ appears to confer with the HL but that is the extend of any officials conferring. We do not see any of the home team staff being overly demonstrative or approaching the officials to discuss the play. I cut the video off as the BJ prepares for the subsequent kickoff.
It would appear that the crew just kicked it and B had no clue any of this was illegal.
Looks like we had similar thoughts. It just took me too long to type my post. ;D
-
Looks like we had similar thoughts.
It should prove the intent that this was planned and not some off the cuff thing dreamed up on the sideline.
I'd be interested to see if there were any recriminations afterward for the crew. Given the fact that no one on B's sideline is pitching a hissy-fit, no complaint may have ever made its way to the PTB.
One other thing I noticed when I went through the video online; B (green) started the game kicking off from the K35 so apparently there were some shenanigans in pre-game too.
-
Note that the R & U signal that they have 11 on A. They either knew that guy was the 11th or else they signaled without actually counting.
With a 7 man crew, I'm leaning toward they thought that play was ok. If not, then somebody didn't speak up.
-
Playing Monday morning quarterback...
Had the officials stopped the clock for the apparently injured player as in 3-5-10
the officials action would have then squashed this bullsh*t play altogether without any flags.
I understand why they did not stop the clock in this situation as it is similar to when a kids helmet comes off and
he immediately grabs his helmet and runs off the field in which, while we are supposed to, we don't always stop the clock?
Just a thought?
Respectfully submitted,
Some guy on a message forum!
-
Next week there is a meeting with some very influential NFHS people.
This play might just happen to come up.
If that should happen, perhaps a ruling? or a POE? or an addition to 9.9.1 SITUATION B?
Respectfully submitted;
Some guy on a message forum!
-
Please tell me the crew penalized that.
-
Playing Monday morning quarterback...
Had the officials stopped the clock for the apparently injured player as in 3-5-10
the officials action would have then squashed this bullsh*t play altogether without any flags.
I understand why they did not stop the clock in this situation as it is similar to when a kids helmet comes off
I agree. I would not have killed it as it appears he was making his way off and a sub had already made their way onto the field. I would have also been making a re-count of my A players.
Please tell me the crew penalized that.
I think the post thread pretty well indicates they didn't.
The lack of any real crew discussion after the play would tend to make me believe that this play was presented to the crew in pre-game and it was erroneously indicated to Team A that the play was legal. Team B's lack of protest indicates they don't know the rules (surprise!) or have that play in their arsenal also.
-
I agree. I would not have killed it as it appears he was making his way off and a sub had already made their way onto the field. I would have also been making a re-count of my A players.
I think the post thread pretty well indicates they didn't.
The lack of any real crew discussion after the play would tend to make me believe that this play was presented to the crew in pre-game and it was erroneously indicated to Team A that the play was legal. Team B's lack of protest indicates they don't know the rules (surprise!) or have that play in their arsenal also.
Having enough trouble reading my own mind, I hesitate to think I can read the minds of others. It's understandable to refrain from interrupting play to insure the (apparently injured exiting player's LAST step cleared the sideline. However, once he instantly turned up field, at full steam, (with the verbal encouragement of his coaching staff, the intent was OBVIOUS.
That intent was to "CHEAT", which was apparently deliberate and choreographed, to gain an UNFAIR ADVANTAGE. An immediate whistle, stopping play may have been appropriate, but the slight hesitation to review the possibilities of what was occurring, to confirm the seriousness of the conclusion, was appropriate & understandable. This was CLEARLY premeditated UNS behavior, calling for THAT specific penalty, holding the HC responsible.
Although the delayed whistle allowed the play to momentarily continue, the action itself prohibits ANY benefit from this behavior from gaining ANY of the sought advantages. The only question resulting is whether this behavior rises to the level of FLAGRANT, causing instant disqualification of the offending HC, or merely the first of two such behaviors requiring disqualification.
-
I agree with ALF. But I am split.
As an official, I am canceling the play going with UNS on HC - previous spot! I would consider deeming the act flagrant.
As an SRI I would never downgrade a a crew for a flagrant UNS for this type of Bullsh*t football.
If we make this a flagrant UNS, the likelyhood is it would go away that much faster? 8]