RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: Hawkeye on September 06, 2010, 04:12:55 PM
-
A 1/10/A-36. A44 runs to the A-40 where he is tackled. The H, seeing that A44’s arm is bleeding, stops the game clock and directs him to the sideline. As A44 runs into the team area to get patched up, the R winds the play and game clocks. No team A player had replaced A44, and A44 gets quickly patched up and returns to the formation as a fullback, and on the next play runs the ball to the A-48.
-
Is a player who has visible blood that needs to be cleaned & covered automatically an "injured player"? I wouldn't think so. Does stopping the game clock to send him off then make him an "injured player"? If he can get patched & back in prior to the snap then he would be OK I would think. Interesting question for discussion. Not aware of any guidance that directly address this situation.
-
A44 entered his team area. I say he committed a substitution infraction - live-ball foul, 5 yds from the previous spot.
-
A44 entered his team area. I say he committed a substitution infraction - live-ball foul, 5 yds from the previous spot.
Not sure of that. By rule 2 definition, until he's actually replaced by a substitute entering the field, he is still a player, either in bounds, or out of bounds. IMO this one's got to hinge Hawkeye's original implied question. Is he considered an "injured player" under the rules, and therefore does he need to sit out for a play?
-
If we stop the clock for a player with blood, in my opinion he is an injured player under 3-3-5-a-4.
Does 3-3-5-a-4 supersede 3-3-5-a-1 requiring only medical clearance to return without the requirement that the player stay out for one play or is it an additional situation that officials must be aware of and 3-3-5-a-4 is just a special case of 3-3-5-a-1?
BTW, he is still a player unless replaced, however is it legal for him to return to the field (i.e. some kind of illegal substitution)? And if it is illegal I like the 5 yard previous spot illegal substitution, but there really is no rule justification for that (at least that I've found).
There is no foul in section 3-3-5 for not sitting out one play, so do we just make something up or is it like changing a decision, if they snap with him back out there, we just have to say "my bad"??
We could take blood totally out of this and say that he twisted his ankle (H stopped clock for an injured player) and when he got to the sideline he thought he was OK and returned undetected to the huddle.
-
Here's what is in the the 2010 NCAA Rules Memo:
- Heightened Awareness of Injured Players. When the game is stopped for any injury, the injured player must leave the game for at least one down. He may not return without approval by medical personnel.
And the new wording for Rule 3.3.5.a:
Injury Timeout
ARTICLE 5. a. In the event of an injured player(s):
1. An official will declare a timeout and the player(s) must leave the game. He must remain out of the game for at least one down. When in question, officials will take a timeout for an injured player.
2. The player(s) may not return to the game until he receives approval of professional medical personnel designated by his institution.
3. Officials and coaches shall give special attention to players who exhibit signs of a concussion.
4. Whenever a participant (player or game official) suffers a laceration or wound from which oozing or bleeding occurs, the player or game official shall go to the team area and be given appropriate medical treatment. He may not return to the game without approval of medical personnel.
Not real clear what we do if he just shows back up in the play, as he did in the case play here? And to confuse it a bit further the wording says "player or game official"? Since there is no language at the end of this section indicating a foul, what are the enforcement suggestions?
-
Similar plays:
AR 3-3-5
VII. During a dead-ball interval, A12 notices that he has a bleeding
elbow and runs to the sideline adjacent to his team’s bench. Medical
personnel at the sideline bandage the elbow and approve A12’s
immediate return to the game. RULING: Legal. The starting of the
play clock will not be delayed to accommodate A12’s trip to the
sideline.
AR 3-5-2
VII. Team A has 11 players in the huddle. A81 mistakenly thinks he has
been replaced and runs to his team area. He is immediately sent
back onto the field and assumes a position on the line of scrimmage
near his sideline. The entire team has been stationary for one second
before the snap and there has not been a referee’s timeout. RULING:
Live-ball foul. A player loses his status as a participant when he
enters the team area while the ball is dead, and then must adhere to
substitution rules. Penalty—Five yards from the previous spot or 15
yards from the previous spot, depending upon defensive coverage
(Rules 3-5-2-d and 9-2-2-b).
The difference seems to be if the players enters the team area or stay in the field.
-
But even in the 2nd case, he's OK if he comes inside the nine yard marks so he's not considered a "hide-out".
-
But even in the 2nd case, he's OK if he comes inside the nine yard marks so he's not considered a "hide-out".
When no timeout is called, he must stay out of the game for one play, that's also part of the substitution rules.
-
When no timeout is called, he must stay out of the game for one play, that's also part of the substitution rules.
I don't believe that's correct. By definition since no one replaced him he is still a player (not a departing player or a substitute). He must comply with the "substitution rules" in that he must be inside the 9's after the RFP and before the snap. I don't believe that there is anything in the rules that explicitly states that he must stay out for a play simply because he stepped across the sideline at his bench. Also, what if he stands just inside the sideline in the field of play while the trainer tapes him up, what then?
-
In AR 3-5-2, the mistakenly leaving player was not replaced (which would make him, by definition, a replaced player and subsequently a squad member), but still committed a foul. To me this means that a player who creates a player vacancy by leaving the field (while the ball is dead) and entering his team area (for whatever reason) is not considered a player in the legal sense anymore und must wait out the following down.
-
While rereading to try to answer this found both of these in AR 3.3.5:
II. After being treated for a bleeding or oozing wound, A22 (A.R. 3-3-5-I) attempts to enter the game before the next snap.
RULING: Unless the period has ended or Team A has taken a timeout, A22 must remain out of the game for one play.
VII. During a dead-ball interval, A12 notices that he has a bleeding elbow and runs to the sideline adjacent to his team’s bench. Medical personnel at the sideline bandage the elbow and approve A12’s immediate return to the game.
RULING: Legal. The starting of the play clock will not be delayed to accommodate A12’s trip to the sideline.
Still doesn't directly answer the "is it a foul" question, but it clearly answers the "If the officials stop the clock to have him get medical attention, does he have to stay out for a play or a timeout" question. If we could figure out the enforcement (if there should be one) we'd be batting 1000.
-
If we could figure out the enforcement (if there should be one) we'd be batting 1000.
Amen, brother! Amen!
-
While rereading to try to answer this found both of these in AR 3.3.5:
II. After being treated for a bleeding or oozing wound, A22 (A.R. 3-3-5-I) attempts to enter the game before the next snap.
RULING: Unless the period has ended or Team A has taken a timeout, A22 must remain out of the game for one play.
VII. During a dead-ball interval, A12 notices that he has a bleeding elbow and runs to the sideline adjacent to his team’s bench. Medical personnel at the sideline bandage the elbow and approve A12’s immediate return to the game.
RULING: Legal. The starting of the play clock will not be delayed to accommodate A12’s trip to the sideline.
Still doesn't directly answer the "is it a foul" question, but it clearly answers the "If the officials stop the clock to have him get medical attention, does he have to stay out for a play or a timeout" question. If we could figure out the enforcement (if there should be one) we'd be batting 1000.
You have to keep in mind that the AR quoted was published prior to the new rule requiring an injured player to sit our at least one play.
-
The 2010 wording is above in the thread. IMO it really doesn't help with the question of a cut/wound that can be wiped & taped in a few seconds. The wording does not clearly require a player with a "repaired wound" to sit out a play, and even if we think it does, it does not clearly specify any foul or penalty enforcement if he does not.
-
It's not a question if there is a wound, it's more a question of how the player behaves. If he stays near the sideline and has his wound treated, he may remain in the game, as soon as he steps over the sideline and into the team area he has to sit out a play.
Basically the same as the QB who comes to the sideline for instructions.
Since all "procedural" substitution infractions are penalized with 5yd PS (as opposed to illegal participation or any attempts to use the substitution process to confuse the opponents), I would infer the same penalty in case where the officials could not effectively prohibit his return onto the field.
-
I don't believe that there is anything in the rules that explicitly states that he must stay out for a play simply because he stepped across the sideline at his bench.
There are many ARs which are not supported by precise wording in the rules. Example: Where do the rules explicitly identify the basic spot for penalty enforcement associated with fouls that occur during the running play and concurrent with the application of the momentum exception? But, AR 8-5-1-VII comes to our rescue.
In spite of this limitation in the ARs, they represent “an official decision” and “illustrate the spirit and application of the rule”. Note, that AR 3-5-2-VII includes rule 3-5-2-d as a citation. That rule passage is directly applicable to the play that Hawkeye put on the table. Consequently, I think the Ruling in AR 3-5-2-VII serves to support charging A44 with a substitution infraction.
-
There are many ARs which are not supported by precise wording in the rules. Example: Where do the rules explicitly identify the basic spot for penalty enforcement associated with fouls that occur during the running play and concurrent with the application of the momentum exception? But, AR 8-5-1-VII comes to our rescue.
In spite of this limitation in the ARs, they represent “an official decision” and “illustrate the spirit and application of the rule”. Note, that AR 3-5-2-VII includes rule 3-5-2-d as a citation. That rule passage is directly applicable to the play that Hawkeye put on the table. Consequently, I think the Ruling in AR 3-5-2-VII serves to support charging A44 with a substitution infraction.
The spirit and letter of the rule here is clear. When a player leaves the field and then returns he must abide by the substitution rules and be inside the 9's after the RFP. These AR's say nothing more and nothing less. There is nothing that says if he comes back in, and gets inside the 9's prior to the snap that there is any foul of any kind.
IMO if this needs to be a foul then someone needs to fix the rules. If we catch this before the play, maybe we're justified in sending the player off and making him sit out a play, if we miss it, our bad, and the play goes on.
-
The spirit and letter of the rule here is clear. When a player leaves the field and then returns he must abide by the substitution rules and be inside the 9's after the RFP. These AR's say nothing more and nothing less. There is nothing that says if he comes back in, and gets inside the 9's prior to the snap that there is any foul of any kind.
I agree, A81 in AR 3-5-2-VII must abide by the substitution rules, specifically 3-5-2-d. That is the take home lesson from that AR. But, why do you think, he has to get inside the 9-yard marks after the RFP? A81 played in previous down; hence has to be inside the 9's sometime after the previous down and before the snap [7-1-3-a-2-(a)]. By virtue of A81 being in the huddle, A81 fulfilled that criteria.
-
In my pregame conferences with the coaches this year I remind them of the new rule. I also explain that if we send off a player under the 'blood rule' without a time out - the coach can, @ his discretion, call a time out if his team is in a critical situation and the player is essential for the next play. Why would an official call an official's time out if it was a little blood - as my old coach used to say, it's acouple of feet from your heart; what are you worrying about? In the words of my grandkids - JUST SAYING! Isn't the essence of the new rule to check for a concussion?
-
I agree, A81 in AR 3-5-2-VII must abide by the substitution rules, specifically 3-5-2-d. That is the take home lesson from that AR. But, why do you think, he has to get inside the 9-yard marks after the RFP? A81 played in previous down; hence has to be inside the 9's sometime after the previous down and before the snap [7-1-3-a-2-(a)]. By virtue of A81 being in the huddle, A81 fulfilled that criteria.
We can agree to disagree on this. My read of AR 3-5-2-VII is that A-81 has 2 choices once he goes to his team area on the sideline. He has to either become a replaced player and stay out for the minimum of one play, or he has to reestablish himself as a legal player by returning to the field of play AND coming inside the nine yard marks. In the AR case he does neither so he's then violated 9-2-2-b and gets either 5 of 15.
The AR uses the language ".... A player loses his status as a participant ..." and not " ... A player loses his status as a player ... ", or alternately " .... A player has become a replaced player ....". We've always considered a player who leaves the field in error to have lost his "inside the nines" status but have allowed him to return, provided he was not replaced, and he comes back inside the nines effectively announcing to the opponent that he's reestablishing as a legal player.
-
My read of AR 3-5-2-VII is that A-81 has 2 choices once he goes to his team area on the sideline. He has to either become a replaced player and stay out for the minimum of one play, or he has to reestablish himself as a legal player by returning to the field of play AND coming inside the nine yard marks. In the AR case he does neither so he's then violated 9-2-2-b and gets either 5 of 15.
I agree with the first part - A81 has to stay out for one down. But where in the rules, ARs or former bulletin plays, do you find support mandating A81 to get inside the 9-yd marks?
The AR uses the language ".... A player loses his status as a participant ..." and not " ... A player loses his status as a player ... ", or alternately " .... A player has become a replaced player ....".
By definition, a player is a participate (2-27-6-a). I see those terms as equivalent. And a replaced player is synomous with replaced participant (2-27-10).
We've always considered a player who leaves the field in error to have lost his "inside the nines" status but have allowed him to return, provided he was not replaced, and he comes back inside the nines effectively announcing to the opponent that he's reestablishing as a legal player.
Please cite a reference to support that.
-
As to the original post, I think it is simply a sub violation. When the A player left he created a player vacancy (see definitions) that can only be filled by a legal substitute. Since the 'injured' player must sit out one play he cannot be that legal substitute. Five yard penalty from the PS, live ball foul.
-
I agree with the first part - A81 has to stay out for one down. But where in the rules, ARs or former bulletin plays, do you find support mandating A81 to get inside the 9-yd marks?
By definition, a player is a participate (2-27-6-a). I see those terms as equivalent. And a replaced player is synomous with replaced participant (2-27-10).
Please cite a reference to support that.
1. The AR states a specific criteria that A81 "assumes a position ..... near his sideline" - if this AR was intended to have universal application to all situations it needs to simply say "re-enters the game". IMO we can't apply this universally, since if A-81 simply went back in and immediately to the huddle the specific criteria in the AR do not apply.
2. We'll simply disagree that the terms player and participant have exactly the same meaning. I don't read it that way.
3. Can't cite any specific reference but if we don't do it that way and apply the AR universally , every Team A player who leaves the field of play is prohibited from returning without sitting out a play. There's no rule reference support for that either that I can find.
-
2. We'll simply disagree that the terms player and participant have exactly the same meaning. I don't read it that way.
And what do you perceive the difference/s between a player and participant?
-
And what do you perceive the difference/s between a player and participant?
The word participant is not included in Chapter 2 definitions and in each case where the word is used in the rulebook is has a slightly different general context and meaning so I don't believe that we can do anything with the term. The closest "definition" you can develop from the places where it's used in the book is that the term describes all of the possible on-field playing members on both teams rosters. How does that fit in the context of how the term is used in the AR? IMO it simply doesn't.
-
The word participant is not included in Chapter 2 definitions ....
Rule 2-27-6-a: "A player is any one of the participants in the game who is not a substitute or a replaced player ..."
Are you splitting hairs between the singular (participate) versus plural (participates)?
The closest "definition" you can develop from the places where it's used in the book is that the term describes all of the possible on-field playing members on both teams ... .
That sur enuff reads like a description of "players" to me.
-
That's not even close to my reading - a participant is simply one of team members in uniform that can participate in the game and the term even includes us (the officials on the field). One of 25-60 more or less per team plus the crew. He is not a substitute or a replaced player, those terms are explicitly defined as is the term player.
We're not splitting hairs here, we're going by the rules. Using the term participant in the context of the AR is simply illogical. If the AR means to say that when the PLAYER steps off the field and across the sideline into the team area that he becomes a DEPARTING PLAYER who must now stay out for at least one play (or a timeout period) it could very easily, and clearly say that using clearly defined terms from the definitions - it doesn't.
What it does say is that the player did not comply with the substitution rules, and given the specific set of facts in the AR (all of the facts) a flag is warranted, no more no less.