Oh, Those Tricky Middle Schoolers

[Kalle]

Call me crazy, but to me a game of football is both a physical and an intellectual game. These "no, we're not about to run a play" types of tricks fail the physical aspect, thus they have no place in the game, IMO - and until my supervisor (or RR) says otherwise I will be flagging each and every attempt of the kind.

If you want a purely intellectual game of deception, take up chess.

[With_Two_Flakes]

Or if you want both, take up chess-boxing. No, I'm not kidding, it's for real.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_boxing

[VALinesman]

We in the NCAA have it easy. Unfair tactics is a previous spot (live ball) foul, so we can simply let this play be run, flag it, and then potentially let the defense decline the penalty.

To those advocating calling this an illegal snap to a lineman, do you flag it when the QB leans over the center so that the crown of his head is above the waist of the center? He is technically a lineman, but I'd bet every supervisor in the world would rise hell with that interpretation.

No, because the rules address that issue. It is an exception because the player is able to receive a direct snap from between the center's legs or to a back.

[jrshrek]

No, because the rules address that issue. It is an exception because the player is able to receive a direct snap from between the center's legs or to a back.

In this case, the was not received between the center's legs.

[DallasLJ]

The snap was illegal, but was also a live ball, previous spot foul.

[southarkumpire]

You guys are being WAY too technical on this.  I don't care if it was the most beautiful, legal snap in the history of South Texas football, or if the QB was exactly 3 mm in his backfield.  All I need, if I was the Umpire standing there looking at him, was to here the little QB say "Center, hand me the ball, I (or they, doesn't matter) need to mark off more yards".....I am on my Fox40 so quick and loud that his ears would still be ringing.  I ain't letting it get started!  5 yards for a false start on the center at least, and maybe 15 for USC because it was a VERBAL from the QB that was intended to deceive.

That is why I must believe the crew was in on it from the start...and that's a shame.

[DallasLJ]

You guys are being WAY too technical on this.  I don't care if it was the most beautiful, legal snap in the history of South Texas football, or if the QB was exactly 3 mm in his backfield.  All I need, if I was the Umpire standing there looking at him, was to here the little QB say "Center, hand me the ball, I (or they, doesn't matter) need to mark off more yards".....I am on my Fox40 so quick and loud that his ears would still be ringing.  I ain't letting it get started!  5 yards for a false start on the center at least, and maybe 15 for USC because it was a VERBAL from the QB that was intended to deceive.

That is why I must believe the crew was in on it from the start...and that's a shame.

  I am with you too.  I have stopped similar plays as soon as they started --live ball foul or not.  I will not let them run an illegal play.  I was just pointing out that the illegal snap was live ball just in case someone tries to snap the ball that way on an otherwise legal play.

[VALinesman]

In this case, the was not received between the center's legs.

My point exactly.

[VALinesman]

You guys are being WAY too technical on this.  I don't care if it was the most beautiful, legal snap in the history of South Texas football, or if the QB was exactly 3 mm in his backfield.  All I need, if I was the Umpire standing there looking at him, was to here the little QB say "Center, hand me the ball, I (or they, doesn't matter) need to mark off more yards".....I am on my Fox40 so quick and loud that his ears would still be ringing.  I ain't letting it get started!  5 yards for a false start on the center at least, and maybe 15 for USC because it was a VERBAL from the QB that was intended to deceive.

That is why I must believe the crew was in on it from the start...and that's a shame.

I agree with you, but it is nice to be able to back actions up with the rulebook.

[southarkumpire]

I agree with you, but it is nice to be able to back actions up with the rulebook.

VA....it's in there:
9-9-5:  Neither team shall commit any act which, in the opinion of the referee, tends to make a travesty of the game.

[AlUpstateNY]

VA....it's in there:
9-9-5:  Neither team shall commit any act which, in the opinion of the referee, tends to make a travesty of the game.

The key point in the above rule (NF: 9-9-5) is the specification, "in the opinion of the referee", which is the same emphasis provided by NF: 1-6-8 "The referee has authority to rule promptly, and in the spirit of good sportsmanship, on any situation not covered in the rules.  The referee's decisions are final in all matters pertaining to the game".

This precisely targeted designation of authority is intentional and deliberate.

[VALinesman]

VA....it's in there:
9-9-5:  Neither team shall commit any act which, in the opinion of the referee, tends to make a travesty of the game.

Oh, I am with you, but that is a federation rule, and in my mind, it is the "where's the tee" play referenced in the NF casebook. In that case, kill it, USC on head coach, 15 yards.

I am not too familiar with NCAA rules, but I did flip through them to answer arguments defending this particular play. Even without the "God Clause" (YES, GOT TO USE IT), a flag should have been thrown on this play.

[LarryW60]

Even without the "God Clause" (YES, GOT TO USE IT), a flag should have been thrown on this play.

We've had enough of these verbal deceptions in the past decade to warrant a specific rule being created rather than relying on the "God Clause".