RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: Gladiator on December 18, 2010, 11:38:58 PM
-
Is this formation legal (notice the wideout at the top of the screen)? Is this play legal (snap not imminent issue)?
[yt=425,350]iK-4N1r9E94[/yt]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iK-4N1r9E94
-
As in the WR at the top, on the line with shoulders not approx parallel to the LOS?
Looks like the same for bottom receiver, but hard to tell. They are facing sideline to help sell the "trick".
-
If nothing else, I'm pretty sure I've got illegal shift. The QB, the back to his right, and the slot guy at the top of the picture do not seem to stop milling around long enough to be set before the snap.
-
I don't see a problem with the formation, but I also see Illegal Shift. All 3 backs other than the QB are moving and not simultaneously set for one second.
Again, if you are going to run a trick play, you had better be perfect in your mechanics.
-
looks to me that the backs are not set and that the right wideout is moving at the snap. also the wideouts are neither one facing downfield. this to me falls under the same category as the wrong tee and other plays too deceptive to be legal. just my humble opinion. other than that a really good football game and really well officiated. congrats to both teams, their coaches and fans and the zebras.
-
HS Game. Birddog has it right: "A lineman is any A player who is facing his opponent's goal line with his shoulders approximately parallel thereto....when the ball is snapped" - Rule 2-32-9. The left wide out on the end of the line does not meet this requirement; so I see only 6 on the LOS.
Backs are moving too; questionable whether all 11 were set for a second....
I HATE this kind of #*%@!!!!!!!!
-
HS Game. Birddog has it right: "A lineman is any A player who is facing his opponent's goal line with his shoulders approximately parallel thereto....when the ball is snapped" - Rule 2-32-9.
It's a Texas HS game so it's NCAA rules, but they are pretty much identical in language in this case. The correct NCAA reference would be rule 2-27-4-a-2.
-
Neither end is a lineman, because their shoulders are not even approaching approximately parallel to B's goal line. Illegal formation, simultaneous with the snap, five yards.
I fail to see the case for illegal motion or illegal shift. At a minimum, all pairs of feet are set for a second.
This assumes there is no verbal conduct to make B believe the snap is not imminent. But if there is--and it looks like B's right tailback might have had that in mind--the foul is unsportsmanlike conduct, no play, fifteen yards.
I hope the latter didn't happen, because if it did, it marks the second time in two months that a crew from Texas has let this go, resulting in a crap play that gains national prominence and causes the rest of us problems when we shut similar garbage down like we're supposed to.
-
Not surprisingly, "it" has a name...Gator
http://galvestondailynews.com/blog/4758 (http://galvestondailynews.com/blog/4758)
-
Help me here. There no longer have the requirement to have 7 linemen - -just cannot have more than 4 backs. So, the fact the top receiver is not squared up may not make him a "legal" lineman, but is certainly isn't a back. So, I am not sure there is a formation problem.
What am I missing?
-
I fail to see the case for illegal motion or illegal shift. At a minimum, all pairs of feet are set for a second.
Agreed. Feet are set and upper body is not simulating the start of a play. Nothing there.
-
Help me here. There no longer have the requirement to have 7 linemen - -just cannot have more than 4 backs. So, the fact the top receiver is not squared up may not make him a "legal" lineman, but is certainly isn't a back. So, I am not sure there is a formation problem.
What am I missing?
Well, if you don't think he's a legal lineman then by rule he isn't "on his scrimmage line" (2-27-4), and if he certainly isn't a back either, he's gotta be a mugwump...
-
Well, if you don't think he's a legal lineman then by rule he isn't "on his scrimmage line" (2-27-4), and if he certainly isn't a back either, he's gotta be a mugwump...
Agreed, he's a mugwump, or in other parlance, "in no man's land".
-
Help me here. There no longer have the requirement to have 7 linemen - -just cannot have more than 4 backs. So, the fact the top receiver is not squared up may not make him a "legal" lineman, but is certainly isn't a back. So, I am not sure there is a formation problem.
What am I missing?
You will never find me defending the "clarity" of the rulebook. It is somewhat convoluted but here is the "logic":
7-1-3-b-1 says all players must be " on their scrimmage line or legally positioned as a back at the snap."
Then you have to go to 2-27-4-a-1 and 2-27-4-a-2 where it talks about linemen and says they are "on the line" when they are parallel (or approx parallel) to the line of scrimmage. If they are not parallel, they are not "on the line". And if they are not "on the line" then you go back to 7-1-3-b-1 and it is a foul.
-
Now, as a Canadian guy, I'm used to all sorts of motion and stuff at the start of a play, and our ends can be in motion on the LOS, so my "instincts" are primed way different. With that very huge grain o' salt on the table, my Devil's advocate says ... it's a good play.
I would hope the coaches had addressed this play in pregame.
-
Trick plays demand the highest level of scrutiny, to be sure, but if a team ran this play AND all players were set AND all players were linemen or backs AND no simulated or actual substitutions were involved, then I would have a legal play.
It can't ALWAYS be illegal to trick the defense into believing the snap isn't imminent, or else we'd have a flag every time the snap comes on "Down" instead of "Hut."
-
Now we are going to get into parsing just what is permitted or not permitted. If they are just looking to the sideline, no verbiage from sideline - in or team - out, I'd say that is legal. But what if the team uses signs and/or hand signals to signal plays in? If they are signalling like that and team is looking at them, and the ball is snapped, is it legal?
I doubt this specific play would work outside of HS. College and pro players know that once the ball is placed on the ground, it can be snapped at any time. It is impiossible to tell from the video but I wonder if the trick play incorporates the R's RFP whistle. I.e. Ball will be snapped at the moment the RFP is blown.
-
Help me here. There no longer have the requirement to have 7 linemen - -just cannot have more than 4 backs. So, the fact the top receiver is not squared up may not make him a "legal" lineman, but is certainly isn't a back. So, I am not sure there is a formation problem.
What am I missing?
When confronted with a player lined up in a questionable manner, the covering wing has to do some fast computing.
First, the wing has to decide in his mind if the questionable player is a lineman, back, or mugwump.
If the wing labels the questionable player as a "lineman", does he coverup an eligible-numbered Team A player?
If the wing says "back", are there more than 3 other backs in Team A's formation?
If the wing picks door #3 ("mugwump"), there's going to be an illegal formation foul at the snap.
BTW, the QB in position to take a hand-to-hand snap is an exception to the illegal formation foul for a mugwump.
-
I was fortunate to be standing on Team A's sideline for this play (about 15 yards upfield from where the ball was snapped), my eyes about popped out of my head when they ran it for a TD, I was sure something was amiss...
There was NO verbal communication from the sideline. The ball was snapped at the exact moment the RFP whistle was blown. I'm still looking for something to call, does anybody want to see this as part of the game?
-
As I suspected, they incorporated the RFP whistle.
Did this team use hand and/or cards to signal in plays?
I think we have found one way to deal with this specific play (illegal formation). That is an easy fix though by having the 2 WR's face downfield instead of to the sideline.
I'd like to see us be able to use the same "rationale" we use on false starts by RB's. If WE thought the snap was happening, then it is a false start. If WE think the snap is not "imminent", then we can use the UnsConduct provisions. Not sure that has rule support however.
Here is another example of the rule loosening causing problems. I suspect many of us recall the day when it was illegal for there to be communicatioin between the team area (coaches) and the players on the field. The rules were looened to permit it and now here we are, years later, with a team taking advantage by lulling the opponent into believing that communication was continuing.
(And a PS for those who want to argue illegal shift on the video play....now that we know the ball was snapped on the RFP, I believe the potential for an illegal shift foul has gone away)
-
I think this all goes back to preventive officiating. Someone hit on it earlier and the coach even mentioned it in the article where he told where he got this play from to let the officials know. As part of my pregame I always ask the coaches if they have any "trick" plays. I then explain to him the rules that may be at risk of being broken on the play, primarily formation requirements as well as any possible substitution trickery.
Not anything like this play, but I had one coach in pregame this year inform me of a play where they would send in 10 players. When the huddle would break they would run 1 guy off toward the sideline but stop short, they'd then send in the 11th player to inside the numbers. His intent (and he admitted so) was to trick the defense into thinking they were subbing a player. He thought everything was good because the 11th player came inside the numbers. I informed him that this play would be illegal for using the sub process to deceive. He took my advice and did not run the play.
-
It can't ALWAYS be illegal to trick the defence into believing the snap isn't imminent, or else we'd have a flag every time the snap comes on "Down" instead of "Hut."
I do find it interesting that whenever a crew let a play like this go the default opinion seems to be that they made a mistake and we should find a way of stopping the play. Presumably the crew didn't think they had a reason quickly enough to throw the flag at the time. Can any of us clearly say we would have thrown the flag and known why we were throwing if we'd been there. I can't believe it would look good if a crew threw a flag then went into a 10 minute huddle while they worked out how they could justify it.
-
Wouldn't it be great if there was a magical e-mail address where you could reach every coach, at every level of Football and inform them that effective immediately, all ridiculous, nit picking, BS plays must stop and the penalty for designing one will be automatic DQ for a minimum of 3 games.
-
I do find it interesting that whenever a crew let a play like this go the default opinion seems to be that they made a mistake and we should find a way of stopping the play. Presumably the crew didn't think they had a reason quickly enough to throw the flag at the time. Can any of us clearly say we would have thrown the flag and known why we were throwing if we'd been there. I can't believe it would look good if a crew threw a flag then went into a 10 minute huddle while they worked out how they could justify it.
The crew may have been caught by surprise. How often does a team snap on the RFP whistle when there is not time crunch involved? But the flanks know what it takes to have a legal formation. If the ball is snapped before they have a chance to determine the legality of the formation there is not much they can do.
-
The crew may have been caught by surprise. How often does a team snap on the RFP whistle when there is not time crunch involved? But the flanks know what it takes to have a legal formation. If the ball is snapped before they have a chance to determine the legality of the formation there is not much they can do.
That's a good point. There was once a saying regarding the responsibilities of wings. "We have 100 things we have to go through and those are all before the snap." If they didn't get to the point of looking at the formation, there really isn't much they can do except cross their fingers and hope everything was legal. I think we have all had plays where we scratched our head thinking, "what the heck just happened." At least the left cornerback on defense appeared to be alert enough to provide coverage. Too bad he didn't intercept it cause that may have removed the play from that coaches playbook.
-
Hypothetical time.
You inform a coach that his fancy trick play where they snap the ball while the offense is looking at the sideline from completely legal positions and stances, with the QB exchanging silent hand signals with a coach, is illegal because they're using communication to decieve the defense into thinking the snap isn't imminent. What would you say if he says "but sir, I use the hand signals to call the snap count in to my offense when they're at the line, and sometimes I use them to call in "snap the ball right now"?
-
I couldn't see the entire team (you only see the near-side wideout's helmet for a bit then he walks off-camera) but depending on how long he takes his stroll, you could have an illegal shift.
-
No illegal shift possible as ball was snapped on the RFP whistle
-
No illegal shift possible as ball was snapped on the RFP whistle
If he was stolling along his line of scrimmage while the ball was snap at the RFP, isn't that illegal motion?
-
Absolutely. But there is no shift until ball has been made RFP. If ball is snapped at that momemt there be an illegal motion foul but no illeg shift
-
If the ball is snapped before they have a chance to determine the legality of the formation there is not much they can do.
Right. And ultimately, the responsibility for being alert and playing defense belongs to.........the defense.
-
Right. And ultimately, the responsibility for being alert and playing defense belongs to.........the defense.
And likewise for our contribution, the responsibility for being alert and officiating belongs to.........the officials. When a team is standing over the ball, with the center close enough to snap the ball simultaneous with the RFP we better be ready and have all of our pre-snap checklist done, and know exactly where everyone is.
-
"I can't believe it would look good if a crew threw a flag then went into a 10 minute huddle while they worked out how they could justify it."
Isn't it our responsibility to try to get the call right, even if it might not "look good?" Plays like these should get the most scrutiny, I would like to see them talk about it and make sure everything is on the up and up. I would not think less of this crew if they talked about it.
It's allways easy to armchair referee these games. I don't like the excuse i didn't get through my presnap because they snapped on the ready. Alot of teams try to do that now so you have to be ready for anything.
In the end, the R and the two wings taking a couple of seconds after the play to just check and make sure everything was legal could have made one of those "crew saving" calls.
-
"I can't believe it would look good if a crew threw a flag then went into a 10 minute huddle while they worked out how they could justify it."
Isn't it our responsibility to try to get the call right, even if it might not "look good?"
I'm not against a discussion to get something right, particularly if two officials have differing views on the same action, but I'm always told "If you think you've got a foul don't throw the flag" so what I wouldn't want to see is a flag thrown on the principle "That was an unusual play so there must be something wrong" followed by the discussion while the crew tried to work out what they could call.
It's all ways easy to armchair referee these games.
I'd agree and I suspect that's why these plays do not get flagged at the time, in real time no crew member could throw the cloth, walk over the WH and give him chapter and verse, so they didn't.
-
At no time do I count 7 "legally on the line" of scrimmage.
The left wide out has shoulders parallel to the sideline, as does the right wide out. Even if the right wide out squares up before the snap, that gives me 6 "legally on the line". The 5 interior linemen are facing their opponents goal line.
In my opinion, at a minimum an illegal formation penalty should have been thrown, and penalty walked off 5 yards.
NCAA rules definition of being "legally on the line" of scrimmage...
2-27-4(2) An eligible pass receiver of Team A is “on his scrimmage line’’ at the snap when he faces his opponent’s goal line with the line of his shoulders approximately parallel thereto and his head breaking the plane of the line drawn through the waistline of the snapper.
-
At no time do I count 7 "legally on the line" of scrimmage.
The left wide out has shoulders parallel to the sideline, as does the right wide out. Even if the right wide out squares up before the snap, that gives me 6 "legally on the line". The 5 interior linemen are facing their opponents goal line.
In my opinion, at a minimum an illegal formation penalty should have been thrown, and penalty walked off 5 yards.
NCAA rules definition of being "legally on the line" of scrimmage...
2-27-4(2) An eligible pass receiver of Team A is “on his scrimmage line’’ at the snap when he faces his opponent’s goal line with the line of his shoulders approximately parallel thereto and his head breaking the plane of the line drawn through the waistline of the snapper.
The math probably comes out the same, but remember that in NCAA we no longer have to have 7 on the line. Just as long as there are no more that 4 in the backfield. Again, not having 7 in this play would mean we have more than 4. I'm also curious about the left guard and left tackle. They are standing straight up. I don't know if their head is breaking the waistline of the snapper. Could be that there are only 3 or 4 on the line.
-
The math probably comes out the same, but remember that in NCAA we no longer have to have 7 on the line. Just as long as there are no more that 4 in the backfield. Again, not having 7 in this play would mean we have more than 4. I'm also curious about the left guard and left tackle. They are standing straight up. I don't know if their head is breaking the waistline of the snapper. Could be that there are only 3 or 4 on the line.
Jason, I appreciate the feedback. So in NFHS, we focus on having 7 on the line of scrimmage to have a legal formation, and are you saying that NCAA focuses on not having more than 4 in the backfield? If that is the case, it seems like a philosophical difference between the two organization, as I thought the intent was to no fewer than 7 on the LOS no matter the level of play.
In other words, if I have 7 on LOS, and 4 in the backfield we both (NFHS and NCAA) have a legal formation.
If I have 6 on the LOS and 4 in the backfield, in NFHS, I have an illegal formation, but using the NCAA logic you would have a legal formation?
My white hat and I once got into a discussion because he was trained to count the backfield. When I threw a flag for an illegal formation (NFHS) he said no, because he had 4 in the backfield, to which I responded, great but I have 6 on the LOS. The team's 11th man was on the sidelines with his buddies watching the game instead of being in the game.
That could be a difference between the two organizations, and since this game was governed by NCAA rules, it may have been a legal formation. I know if that play happens in any of the NFHS states, a flag drops.
-
If I have 6 on the LOS and 4 in the backfield, in NFHS, I have an illegal formation, but using the NCAA logic you would have a legal formation?
Yes. The NCAA decided it was silly to penalize a team with fewer than 11 on the field since they are already at a disadvantage.
-
That could be a difference between the two organizations, and since this game was governed by NCAA rules, it may have been a legal formation. I know if that play happens in any of the NFHS states, a flag drops.
It should still be an illegal formation under NCAA rules as at least the top receiver is not on the LOS but he is also not a back, which puts him in "no man's land".
-
The math probably comes out the same, but remember that in NCAA we no longer have to have 7 on the line. Just as long as there are no more that 4 in the backfield. Again, not having 7 in this play would mean we have more than 4.
To reiterate, NCAA rules no longer require 7 on the line provided there are only 4 backs and a total of 10 or less Team A players. However, if there are less than 7 Team A legal lineman, 4 legal backs, and a total of 11 players, Team A has the makings of a foul at the snap.
-
It should still be an illegal formation under NCAA rules as at least the top receiver is not on the LOS but he is also not a back, which puts him in "no man's land".
Wouldn't both ends with six on the line also have to be an eligible number?
-
Wouldn't both ends with six on the line also have to be an eligible number?
No, that isn't a requirement for NCAA rules.
-
Wouldn't both ends with six on the line also have to be an eligible number?
In the US, only the NFL requires an eligible number on the end of the line.
Of course, an "end" with an ineligible number is not an eligible receiver.
As for the NFL rule, that is the reason you will hear the R announce, "#74 has reported as an eligible receiver." 99%+ of the time, that guy has no intention of catching a pass, or even going out for one. But since the end has to have an eligible number, he must report as an eligible. Most of the time, it's just way of getting an extra blocker into the game.
-
To reiterate, NCAA rules no longer require 7 on the line provided there are only 4 backs and a total of 10 or less Team A players. However, if there are less than 7 Team A legal lineman, 4 legal backs, and a total of 11 players, Team A has the makings of a foul at the snap.
I agree with Diablo here. When A has 11 on the field as they do here, they are required to have 7 players that qualify as legal lineman - they don't. I also agree with multiple previous comments that when a team is trying to flex the rules and run a trick play then they better comply 100% with the applicable requirements. Way too many problems here for this one to be legal IMO.
-
One aspect of this I saw on another website that we have not even dealt with yet are the mouthpieces. deadhorse:
-
Yes. The NCAA decided it was silly to penalize a team with fewer than 11 on the field since they are already at a disadvantage.
Does the NCAA share that philosophy when that 10 man offense clips 80 yards away from a scoring touchdown? I'm just saying... When you add that kind of "well they were already are at a disadvantage" judgment as to what gets called you could get in a tough spot real quick. Just my personal opinion.
One aspect of this I saw on another website that we have not even dealt with yet are the mouthpieces. deadhorse:
TxMike, good call ref. However, if that was the first time that happened (mouthpieces usually fall under preventative officiating) and you negate the touchdown on that penalty, you become just as instantly famous from the other side of the aisle that claims "referee taking the game out of the hands of the kids! Let them play, etc..." as you would have by a no-call.
To all,
So have we decided that according to NCAA rules this was a legal play or not?
-
Does the NCAA share that philosophy when that 10 man offense clips 80 yards away from a scoring touchdown? I'm just saying... When you add that kind of "well they were already are at a disadvantage" judgment as to what gets called you could get in a tough spot real quick. Just my personal opinion.
we decided that according to NCAA rules this was a legal play or not?
The NCAA decided that the deciding factor in the "seven men on the line" rule was to limit the number of eligible receivers down to six. It makes little sense to penalize a team for following the spirit of that rule when they have less than 11 players.
-
If the play goes off without us dealing with the mouthpieces then I got nothing. We shut ity down and deal with it or wait till next play
-
Note that the top receiver (and most likely the bottom receiver as well) does not have his shoulders "approximately" parallel to the opponents goal line, and he is not facing the opponents goal line, both criteria being requirements of an eligible reciever that is positioned on the line of scrimmage (a lineman) (Rule 2-27-4-a2, FR-58). Thus, there should have been a foul called for illegal formation (5 yard penalty from prev spot). We've all missed fouls, especially under "unusual" types of circumstances, but it does reinforce the importance of staying forcused, and staying alert once the ball has been made ready and the snapper has touched (or simulated touching), the ball.
-
I think this highlights the importance of "coach, do you have any special plays you'd like us to be aware of," element of pre-game chatter.
-
How can a mouthpiece negate a TD?
I order to call Mouthpiece infraction you have to make that call before the SNAP. Before the snap you have 2 options available.
#1. Charge team with T.O.
#2. If they are out of T.O., 5 yard Delay of game
But if the play was snapped, there is no way you can throw a flag for a mouthpiece and negate a TD.
Correct me if I am wrong.
It can't negate the TD. That is what I said. We deal with it presnap or else we have to deal with it presnap before the next play. If the play occurs and the mouthpiece is out we lost our chance.
-
I think this highlights the importance of "coach, do you have any special plays you'd like us to be aware of," element of pre-game chatter.
The answer is usually "no", then they proceed to run all kinds of crap in their first possession. hEaDbAnG
-
The answer is usually "no", then they proceed to run all kinds of crap in their first possession. hEaDbAnG
There are two people every football coach should be very careful about surprising; their wife and today's Referee.
-
+1, Al.