RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: TXMike on December 04, 2011, 10:47:37 AM
-
I thought we had received guidance that trick plays like this were illegal?
http://youtu.be/kwmM1WCtiMg (http://youtu.be/kwmM1WCtiMg)
-
ACC. You expected less?
Clemson pushes the envelope (and rips it open) on these type of plays. Twice last year they got away with hiding receivers on the sideline. both times the league office issued statements that week that the plays were illegal. One of those came in the Ga Tech game where BOTH teams got away with it.
-
Unless he's using equipment or substitution issues (for lack of a better word), isn't this OK?
-
"Actions or verbiage designed to confuse the defense into believing the snap is not imminent, are not legal. This includes pretending to have a problem with the play that has been called, an equipment problem with a shoe, the ball, etc. and feigning an injury. A good rule of thumb to follow is that if an act appears to be unfair, it is probably contrary to the rules."
That came from Redding I think but am looking for original source
-
Depends on what was said - if nothing, I'm comfortable with this play.
-
I don't see direct rule or AR support for the Redding quote, under either rule 9 or 7 (false start).
-
I don't see direct rule or AR support for the Redding quote, under either rule 9 or 7 (false start).
This has been covered multiple times in the past (I also believe it was by Dr. Redding), and IMO it falls under the language used in AR 9-2-2-V where the player turns and indicates that there is some kind of problem on the field that needs to get resolved. We've been told multiple times that this is only legal when there is no interaction with the sideline that is intended to indicate there is a problem and the snap is not going to happen. IMO this one gets a flag. ^flag
-
9-2-2-V deals with substitution, not "some kind of problem on the field." Substitution is expressly covered in the rule, thus the AR makes sense.
This play has nothing to do with substitution. I'm not arguing its legal; I'm just saying Redding's comment doesn't make it illegal. It isn't an NCAA AR or otherwise adopted resource. In this case, there doesn't really seem to be a clear reference to a stated rule.
We can't extrapolate rules to cover situations that we may think are similar to what the rule says.
When the QB turns and says or does something toward the sideline, how is that different than a fake punt where the punter acts as if the snap goes over his head, and he turns and runs after an imaginary ball?
-
This play is apples and oranges when compared to the faked "over the head snap" as that is a live ball action that takes place on the field of play. We've been instructed multiple times that any dead ball interaction or simulated interaction with the sideline that is intended make Team B believe that the snap is not imminent is a foul.
-
If he keeps his hands at his side and does not indicate anything presnap beyond turning and facing his sideline, do we still have a foul? I think it becomes a problem when he indicated action with his hands towards his sidelines.
-
If the QB had walked out and was yelling to a slot receiver or TE and not to the sideline, and the same snap happens, would it be legal then?
Is what makes it illegal the QB talking to the sideline instead of to a wideout?
-
If he turns and simply walks away then he hasn't interacted with the sideline so IMO that's legal. Once he adds the play acting role with the head shake, the arm movements, and what looks like verbal stuff, he's crossed the line. It's the interaction with the sideline, either real or simulated, that's the problem here.
-
If the QB had walked out and was yelling to a slot receiver or TE and not to the sideline, and the same snap happens, would it be legal then?
Is what makes it illegal the QB talking to the sideline instead of to a wideout?
He's always free to talk all he wants to any of the 11 legal players on the field, unless he loudly announces to the WR #81 as he's walking over to him that he has to leave the field.
-
Here's one of Dr. Reddings guidances from NCAA FOOTBALL RULES 2009 PLAY SITUATIONS #3, dated November 13, 2009:
2. Second and 10 at the A-45. Quarterback A12 is in a “shotgun” formation. All players are
stopped for a full second when A12 turns (no false start) and begins to trot toward his
sideline in apparent confusion about what play is to be called or whether the coach wants to
request a timeout. He is moving parallel to his end line and is almost to his sideline when the
ball is snapped to A45 who is five yards behind the snapper. A45 then completes a forward
pass to A12 for a long gain.
RULING: Unsportsmanlike conduct for an unfair act to deceive the opponents. The referee
may impose any penalty he deems reasonable. In this case the penalty is for a live-ball foul,
15 yards at the previous spot and the down is repeated. Second and 25 at the A-30. (9-2-3-c)
There are several others but my electronic filing system leaves a lot to be desired.
-
Reddings Guide is persuasive, but not absolute authority unless the NCAA rule committee authorizes its use. I've never owned a copy and I dare say, neither have most of the officials working games under NCAA rules. We have to go by the ARs.
We've been instructed multiple times that any dead ball interaction or simulated interaction with the sideline that is intended make Team B believe that the snap is not imminent is a foul.
You keep saying this, but who is "we" and by whom?
This play is apples and oranges when compared to the faked "over the head snap" as that is a live ball action that takes place on the field of play.
The ball becomes live when its snapped. The video shows the player doing this while the ball is being snapped. Teams also do "look back" (to the sideline) after appearing to be ready to snap the ball. How do you define "interaction?" Non-verbal is OK, but verbal is not? I'm sorry, but there is absolutely NO rules support for that.
-
Reddings Guide is persuasive, but not absolute authority unless the NCAA rule committee authorizes its use. I've never owned a copy and I dare say, neither have most of the officials working games under NCAA rules. We have to go by the ARs.
You keep saying this, but who is "we" and by whom?
The ball becomes live when its snapped. The video shows the player doing this while the ball is being snapped. Teams also do "look back" (to the sideline) after appearing to be ready to snap the ball. How do you define "interaction?" Non-verbal is OK, but verbal is not? I'm sorry, but there is absolutely NO rules support for that.
Joe, I've always said the same thing about the study guide, but this ain't from the study guide. They are official interpretations by Redding as the Sec-Ed.
-
Reddings Guide is persuasive, but not absolute authority unless the NCAA rule committee authorizes its use. I've never owned a copy and I dare say, neither have most of the officials working games under NCAA rules. We have to go by the ARs.
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/rules/football/2009/2009playsituationsno%203-1109.pdf
This is the memo from which that play situation is taken.
-
It would be nice to have an AR in the next book about this, with the words "snap not imminent" included in the ruling... then again, it didn't make the current book even though the actual RR ruling is from 2009, so I'm not holding my breath.
-
Pardon my mistake. I was going off this comment:
That came from Redding
-
That is where it is coming from, Redding. He is the one who wrote the Bulletin
-
So it is nowhere in the rulebook, but it is in a memo from 2009 and, you are expected to know the rule book and any rules "memos" from when... 2008? 2005?
I mean, if it is a new rule or a change to a rule, and since there has been a new rulebook released since the memo was penned doesn't it make a moderate amount of sense that it would have been included in the 2011 rulebook?
I understand the need for "memos" between the book releases... call them addendums... but shouldn't they be rolled into the next release?
-
So it is nowhere in the rulebook, but it is in a memo from 2009 and, you are expected to know the rule book and any rules "memos" from when... 2008? 2005?
I mean, if it is a new rule or a change to a rule, and since there has been a new rulebook released since the memo was penned doesn't it make a moderate amount of sense that it would have been included in the 2011 rulebook?
I understand the need for "memos" between the book releases... call them addendums... but shouldn't they be rolled into the next release?
Or at least added to ARs.
-
So it is nowhere in the rulebook, but it is in a memo from 2009 and, you are expected to know the rule book and any rules "memos" from when... 2008? 2005?
All the way back. The play situation bulletins have been around for at least ten years - obviously some play situations have been obsoleted by later rule changes, but that is still a lot of situations to consider, and it is very difficult for a non-NCAA official to get their hands on anything earlier than 2006 or so.
-
So it is nowhere in the rulebook, but it is in a memo from 2009 and, you are expected to know the rule book and any rules "memos" from when... 2008? 2005?
I mean, if it is a new rule or a change to a rule, and since there has been a new rulebook released since the memo was penned doesn't it make a moderate amount of sense that it would have been included in the 2011 rulebook?
I understand the need for "memos" between the book releases... call them addendums... but shouldn't they be rolled into the next release?
Damned right. Some get placed into the rules as rule changes or ARs. Some get superseded by rule changes, or changes in interpretation by a new Sec-Ed. But some remain in effect.
No one said this was easy.
-
Damned right. Some get placed into the rules as rule changes or ARs. Some get superseded by rule changes, or changes in interpretation by a new Sec-Ed. But some remain in effect.
No one said this was easy.
Amen. :bOW
-
I don't think anyone said it was easy... but here's a situation for you..
Coach... "What is that flag for, there is nothing in the rule book that prohibits that" (whatever it may be)
No sir it isn't, but Rogers Redding released a bulletin in 2008, you may not have seen it, in that bulletin he said that this was a foul.
Coach... ::)
Hard to tell them to "reference the rule book" when the rule book doesn't even have "everything" in it...
Also hard to say that the coaches on the Rules Committee make the rules, but then on the side the Rules Editor releases his own take on one thing or the other and that becomes a silent rule that isn't in the book, and likely hasn't been vetted by the Rules Committee.
These situations are rare, but it is interesting...
-
I don't think anyone said it was easy... but here's a situation for you..
Coach... "What is that flag for, there is nothing in the rule book that prohibits that" (whatever it may be)
No sir it isn't, but Rogers Redding released a bulletin in 2008, you may not have seen it, in that bulletin he said that this was a foul.
Coach... ::)
Hard to tell them to "reference the rule book" when the rule book doesn't even have "everything" in it...
Also hard to say that the coaches on the Rules Committee make the rules, but then on the side the Rules Editor releases his own take on one thing or the other and that becomes a silent rule that isn't in the book, and likely hasn't been vetted by the Rules Committee.
These situations are rare, but it is interesting...
By what you write, it sounds as though you worry or care about what a coach thinks. If you've done your job in studying and knowing the rules and their approved interpretations, and applying that knowledge correctly on the field, you owe the coach nothing more than a report of what was called. You do not owe him a an explanation as to where you obtained your knowledge. If he needs/wants education regarding rules, he can approach the appropriate educator/interpreter at a more appropriate time. If you are in a TV break or something and have time, fine. But, otherwise, in the middle of a game ain't the appropriate time. Just tell him, respectfully, "Coach, I've reported the (foul/ruling) to you. At the next time-out, I can try to explain it to you, if you'd like. But, right now, I've got to focus and concentrate on the next play." And then you move on. At the next break, approach him, and see if he wants to listen to you. If so, tell him that the Sec-Ed issues interpretations bulletins from time-to-time, which are available to ANYONE via the NCAA web site, and the ruling made on the field was directed by one of the bulletins. When (not "if") he starts to argue, then you just tell him that he asked a question and you've given him the answer; and, if he doesn't believe you, you can't help him. Move on.
We all just need to know and do our job and not worry about what coaches think.
-
By what you write, it sounds as though you worry or care about what a coach thinks. If you've done your job in studying and knowing the rules and their approved interpretations, and applying that knowledge correctly on the field, you owe the coach nothing more than a report of what was called. You do not owe him a an explanation as to where you obtained your knowledge. If he needs/wants education regarding rules, he can approach the appropriate educator/interpreter at a more appropriate time. If you are in a TV break or something and have time, fine. But, otherwise, in the middle of a game ain't the appropriate time. Just tell him, respectfully, "Coach, I've reported the (foul/ruling) to you. At the next time-out, I can try to explain it to you, if you'd like. But, right now, I've got to focus and concentrate on the next play." And then you move on. At the next break, approach him, and see if he wants to listen to you. If so, tell him that the Sec-Ed issues interpretations bulletins from time-to-time, which are available to ANYONE via the NCAA web site, and the ruling made on the field was directed by one of the bulletins. When (not "if") he starts to argue, then you just tell him that he asked a question and you've given him the answer; and, if he doesn't believe you, you can't help him. Move on.
We all just need to know and do our job and not worry about what coaches think.
Careful "El"; you're sounding like "UpstateNY Al" here.....and we definitely don't need another one!
-
I don't think anyone said it was easy... but here's a situation for you..
Coach... "What is that flag for, there is nothing in the rule book that prohibits that" (whatever it may be)
No sir it isn't, but Rogers Redding released a bulletin in 2008, you may not have seen it, in that bulletin he said that this was a foul.
Coach... ::)
Hard to tell them to "reference the rule book" when the rule book doesn't even have "everything" in it...
Also hard to say that the coaches on the Rules Committee make the rules, but then on the side the Rules Editor releases his own take on one thing or the other and that becomes a silent rule that isn't in the book, and likely hasn't been vetted by the Rules Committee.
These situations are rare, but it is interesting...
Actually, the Rules Editor does not just release the bulletins until they have met the rules committees blessings. The Bulletins are sent out by Ty Halpin from the NCAA. So yes, they did go through the process to be approved.
-
Actually, the Rules Editor does not just release the bulletins until they have met the rules committees blessings. The Bulletins are sent out by Ty Halpin from the NCAA. So yes, they did go through the process to be approved.
good to know.
-
By what you write, it sounds as though you worry or care about what a coach thinks. If you've done your job in studying and knowing the rules and their approved interpretations, and applying that knowledge correctly on the field, you owe the coach nothing more than a report of what was called. You do not owe him a an explanation as to where you obtained your knowledge. If he needs/wants education regarding rules, he can approach the appropriate educator/interpreter at a more appropriate time. If you are in a TV break or something and have time, fine. But, otherwise, in the middle of a game ain't the appropriate time. Just tell him, respectfully, "Coach, I've reported the (foul/ruling) to you. At the next time-out, I can try to explain it to you, if you'd like. But, right now, I've got to focus and concentrate on the next play." And then you move on. At the next break, approach him, and see if he wants to listen to you. If so, tell him that the Sec-Ed issues interpretations bulletins from time-to-time, which are available to ANYONE via the NCAA web site, and the ruling made on the field was directed by one of the bulletins. When (not "if") he starts to argue, then you just tell him that he asked a question and you've given him the answer; and, if he doesn't believe you, you can't help him. Move on.
We all just need to know and do our job and not worry about what coaches think.
mountain meet molehill, I don't think I mentioned anything about teaching coaches or worrying what they think on the sidelines during the game.
I think I mentioned the fact that there may be interpretations/addendums of/to rules that cannot be found anywhere in the rule book and that IMO wasn't a good thing. Also, the fact that when asked about where these rules were in print (didn't say it was in a game, could be a scrimmage, or over a cup of tea) that the rule book was not the end all be all as many would like it to be.
AND
I said it was rare that anything like that ever comes up.
-
Actually, the Rules Editor does not just release the bulletins until they have met the rules committees blessings. The Bulletins are sent out by Ty Halpin from the NCAA. So yes, they did go through the process to be approved.
So you're saying that the "A" in "AR" actually means something? Good to know!
-
All the bulletins are sent to the coaches in all the college conferences. They are at least provided the document that the officials get and have the same opportunity to learn the rules interpretations that we receive.
-
I don't think anyone said it was easy... but here's a situation for you..
Coach... "What is that flag for, there is nothing in the rule book that prohibits that" (whatever it may be)
No sir it isn't, but Rogers Redding released a bulletin in 2008, you may not have seen it, in that bulletin he said that this was a foul.
Coach... ::)
Hard to tell them to "reference the rule book" when the rule book doesn't even have "everything" in it...
Also hard to say that the coaches on the Rules Committee make the rules, but then on the side the Rules Editor releases his own take on one thing or the other and that becomes a silent rule that isn't in the book, and likely hasn't been vetted by the Rules Committee.
These situations are rare, but it is interesting...
You don't have to make it that complicated...
"Coach, by interpretation, it is an unfair act to commit an act that leads the defense to believe the snap is not imminent."
On the field any further discussion on that is fruitless.
On a side note, I had a middle school coach this year tell me in pre-game they were going to do something similar. Fortunately he didn't argue with me when I told him it wasn't legal.
-
Aren't all the ARs and interps BASED on the rules, anyway? You kind of make it sound like RR made things up as he saw fit. I dont remember reading anything that wasnt rooted in some rule somewhere
-
Nearly identical play occurred in the MT vs. MT State game in Bozeman two weeks ago...UNS was called and enforced.
-
What is a problem about the bulletins is that whilst they are sent out to the appropriate folks at the Div I, II, III levels, if you are outside of that grouping then have to either periodically check for new ones from time to time or hear about a new one on Forums etc.
Does anyone know what mechanisms are in place to alert those States that use NCAA for High School football (Ma and Tx) of the issue of a new bulletin? What about other long-term users such as Japan and Mexico?
We use NCAA Rules over here in the UK and Europe. Indeed NCAA rules are the worldwide standard for football - apart from our Canadian cousins of course ;D. Hopefully some kind of arrangement may be made in the future between the NCAA and IFAF (International Federation of American Football) so that the bulletins can be distributed worldwide.
-
The NCAA could care less about any state or country that chooses to use the NCAA rules. We do so "at our own peril" so to speak so it is up to us to learn anything new if we want to do so/ They only care about their member institutions. Texas HS football used to have an active rep in the room at rules committee meetings but that went away quite a few years ago. Now we can't even get in the room.
-
Indeed NCAA rules are the worldwide standard for football - apart from our Canadian cousins of course
Huh? There are 13,926 high schools using FED rules in the US. And that doesn't count the junior high and youth league teams that use FED rules.
There are 2,467 schools using NCAA rules, and that counts all levels of NCAA, NAIA, Junior Colleges, Community Colleges, Texas and Massachusetts High schools.
Unless you are hiding 11,000 teams overseas, NCAA rules aren't the "standard". FED rules are the most used rule set in all of football. I'm not saying FED rules are better or worse, there are advantages and disadvantages to both. But NCAA rules aren't the most popular or used rules set, by a factor of five or so.
-
Unless you are hiding 11,000 teams overseas, NCAA rules aren't the "standard". FED rules are the most used rule set in all of football. I'm not saying FED rules are better or worse, there are advantages and disadvantages to both. But NCAA rules aren't the most popular or used rules set, by a factor of five or so.
FED may be the most used rule set if you count the number of teams, but if you take the worldwide coverage, NCAA beats FED hands down. I don't know of any other country that used FED except for the US (does Mexico use FED in youth ball?) and I know dozens that use exclusively NCAA.
-
How are we alerted? Well, almost everyone working NCAA football is a paid member of the CFO, and the CFO notifies all members of new bulletins, videos, etc., as they are made available (on the CFO web site). The CFO is open to anyone with $100 and a an e-mail address. Become registered, and you can get the same info right along with everyone in the US. How you raise the $100 and how that info gets further distributed I'll leave to your imagination (in full compliance with all US and international copyright laws, of course).
What is a problem about the bulletins is that whilst they are sent out to the appropriate folks at the Div I, II, III levels, if you are outside of that grouping then have to either periodically check for new ones from time to time or hear about a new one on Forums etc.
Does anyone know what mechanisms are in place to alert those States that use NCAA for High School football (Ma and Tx) of the issue of a new bulletin? What about other long-term users such as Japan and Mexico?
We use NCAA Rules over here in the UK and Europe. Indeed NCAA rules are the worldwide standard for football - apart from our Canadian cousins of course ;D. Hopefully some kind of arrangement may be made in the future between the NCAA and IFAF (International Federation of American Football) so that the bulletins can be distributed worldwide.
-
How are we alerted? Well, almost everyone working NCAA football is a paid member of the CFO, and the CFO notifies all members of new bulletins, videos, etc., as they are made available (on the CFO web site). The CFO is open to anyone with $100 and a an e-mail address. Become registered, and you can get the same info right along with everyone in the US. How you raise the $100 and how that info gets further distributed I'll leave to your imagination (in full compliance with all US and international copyright laws, of course).
The CFO came out with an offering for TASO members to become members at a reduced rate. I joined when they unveiled it this last season so for us that's a boon. Maybe something could be arranged for associations outside the US as well?
-
There are 2,467 schools using NCAA rules, and that counts all levels of NCAA, NAIA, Junior Colleges, Community Colleges, Texas and Massachusetts High schools.
I think your numbers are off a little.
According to the Texas Education Agency (TEA), as of 2010 Texas had 1507 High Schools, 321 Junior High Schools and 1295 middle schools. Total of 3123. An extremely large number of those have multiple football teams, all using the NCAA football code.
Best Regards,
Brad
-
I think your numbers are off a little.
According to the Texas Education Association (TEA), as of 2010 Texas had 1507 High Schools, 321 Junior High Schools and 1295 middle schools. Total of 3123. An extremely large number of those have multiple football teams, all using the NCAA football code.
Best Regards,
Brad
My post above specifically said HIGH schools in those states. But comparatively, it only includes HIGH schools for all of the other states as well.
So if you wanted to count the middle/junior high schools in Massachusetts and Texas, you would need to count those schools in all of the other states as well.
No matter how you want to count it, there are five times more teams using FED rules rather than NCAA rules. And I would also contend that Texas and Massachusetts don't truly use NCAA rules, they use a modified version of NCAA rules. The Massachusetts exceptions take up three pages!
Look, I'm not advocating the superiority of any rule set, there are positives and negatives to all of them, FED, NCAA and NFL. In my work, I use all three, often in the same weekend. Just countering that NCAA rules are the "standard". The most used set of rules, and therfore the "standard" would be FED rules, and it's not even close.
-
........ And I would also contend that Texas and Massachusetts don't truly use NCAA rules, they use a modified version of NCAA rules. The Massachusetts exceptions take up three pages!
True that we in MA have "exceptions", but those "three pages" of exceptions are all game clock, play clock, and game administration types of differences. Once the ball is in play between the lines, it's by the NCAA book.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Excuse, two pages, not three. You were the one that was kind enough to share these with me previously.
But as a kicking coach, I see 23' 4" goal posts, use of a kicking block on place kicks, a 2" tee and kickoffs from the 40. Those aren't administrative issues, those are pretty significant rule changes that coincidently (or not) match FED rules!
-
How are we alerted? Well, almost everyone working NCAA football is a paid member of the CFO, and the CFO notifies all members of new bulletins, videos, etc., as they are made available (on the CFO web site). The CFO is open to anyone with $100 and a an e-mail address. Become registered, and you can get the same info right along with everyone in the US. How you raise the $100 and how that info gets further distributed I'll leave to your imagination (in full compliance with all US and international copyright laws, of course).
If you're looking for a cheaper source for acquiring the bulletins, sign onto Rom Gilbert's email distribution list. Along with preseason missives, in season quizzes & videos and postseason videos, he emails bulletins the day they come out. His fee ..... Nada.