Illegal Substitution?

[OB1]

Team B player #98, thinking he's been replaced, rushes off the field and joins the team bench.  He realized he has not been replaced and rushes back onto the field and joins the defensive formation before the snap.   Ruling:  (See rule 3-5-2 d) and 2-27-10)

[TxSkyBolt]

Similar to AR 3-5-2-IV.  5 yard live ball substitution foul. 

[OB1]

That's what was called in the scrimmage, however the defensivie player never met the definition of a 'replaced player ' defined in rule 2.  After reflection I believe this is NOT a foul.  Just wondering if I'm missing anything. 

[Kalle]

This is actually a situation where I think the AR is in conflict with the rules, but as it is very specific, I have to go with it. Agree with TxSkyBolt.

[OB1]

But I think the rule is specific as it refers to a 'replaced' player not being allowed to go out and come back during the same dead ball period... by definition, this wasn't a 'replaced' player.  It's also putting his own team at a disadvantage ... not arguing by any means just trying to get a full handle and clear understanding.

[Birddog]

Similar to AR 3-5-2-IV.  5 yard live ball substitution foul.

This AR is for the offense where the returning player (sub) did not meet the 9yd mark requirments.  I don't think it is the same as the OP situation.  I say now foul.

[El Macman]

But I think the rule is specific as it refers to a 'replaced' player not being allowed to go out and come back during the same dead ball period... by definition, this wasn't a 'replaced' player.  It's also putting his own team at a disadvantage ... not arguing by any means just trying to get a full handle and clear understanding.

As Kalle, says, the rule language doesn't match the AR. While the rule is supposed to trump the Ar in the case of conflict, there really isn't a conflict here, because the AR is interpreting this very aspect of the rule. Come in, stay in. Go out, stay out.

[jg-me]

B98 created a player vacancy when he went to the team area. As EM notes, this AR simply clarifies for us the person who left the field cannot be his own substitute - a seperate issue from a replaced player.

[NVFOA_Ump]

AR 3-5-2-IV IMO clearly says that the player who "loses his status as a participant" must adhere to the substitution rules.  If he comes inside the nines he would have meet the requirements to reestablish himself as a player as required by 3-5-2-d.  He doesn't do that in the AR case play.

In the current case play I don't see any foul if the player who incorrectly left with no substitute entering the game meets the all of the substitution rules including being inside the nines when he returns since he was never a "replaced player".

The rule requires "incoming substitutes" who establish themselves as players to remain in the game for at least 1 play.  Where do we get the imputed language that a player leaving the field in error has effectively accrued a requirement to remain off of the field for at least one play? Or in a related scenario if the coach immediately decided to return a replaced player for a another player who was on the field for the previous play that certainly is legal.

[Kalle]

Where do we get the imputed language that a player leaving the field in error has effectively accrued a requirement to remain off of the field for at least one play?

The language in the AR is pretty clear to me: "A player loses his status as a participant when he enters the team area while the ball is dead." Rule 3-5-2-d then says: "replaced players must remain out of the game for one play."

It would be nice if 2-27-10 included a player who enters his team area while the ball is dead.

[Rulesman]

It would be nice if 2-27-10 included a player who enters his team area while the ball is dead.

Be careful what you ask for. I'm afraid that would open a whole new can of worms you'd be forced to deal with.

[El Macman]

AR 3-5-2-IV IMO clearly says that the player who "loses his status as a participant" must adhere to the substitution rules.  If he comes inside the nines he would have meet the requirements to reestablish himself as a player as required by 3-5-2-d.  He doesn't do that in the AR case play.

In the current case play I don't see any foul if the player who incorrectly left with no substitute entering the game meets the all of the substitution rules including being inside the nines when he returns since he was never a "replaced player".

As Kalle states, the AR is very clear. When a player enters the team area, his status becomes that of a replaced player, regardless if he is actually replaced or not. As a replaced player, he must remain out for one play.
The AR is interpreting Rule, and the interpretation is ever so clear. Sure - it would be nice if the rule language explicitly matched the AR. If it did, though, we wouldn't need the AR, now would we?
This is very easy to remember: Come in, stay in. Go out, stay out.

Or in a related scenario if the coach immediately decided to return a replaced player for a another player who was on the field for the previous play that certainly is legal.

Absolutely incorrect. A replaced player must remain out of the game for one "play." With the rule and the AR, any player that leaves the field (with or without a substitute) must remain out one play. After he is out for one play, he becomes a squad member on the sideline, and may become a substitute.

Now, for those that want to complain, there is a legitimate complaint regarding the term "play," versus "down," as the new helmet rules have brought to the forefront.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Absolutely incorrect. A replaced player must remain out of the game for one "play." With the rule and the AR, any player that leaves the field (with or with a substitute) must remain out one play. After he is out for one play, he becomes a squad member on the sideline, and may become a substitute.

Where is the language in the rules that states that a player who has left the field of play must then stay off the field of play for at least one play?

[El Macman]

Where is the language in the rules that states that a player who has left the field of play must then stay off the field of play for at least one play?

3-5-2-d plus AR 3-5-2-IV.

[NVFOA_Ump]

But 3-5-2-d refers specifically to a replaced player.  The Rule 2 definition of a replaced player is very specific:

Replaced Player:  RULE 2, ARTICLE 10. A replaced player is one who participated during the previous down, has been replaced by a substitute and has left the field of play and the end zones.

The player in the case play in question here has not been "... replaced by a substitute" and by rule definition is not a replaced player.

The referenced AR has another condition that is not present here in that the player who returned was not inside the nines.  IMO it simply does not apply in this case.

[El Macman]

But 3-5-2-d refers specifically to a replaced player.  The Rule 2 definition of a replaced player is very specific:

Replaced Player:  RULE 2, ARTICLE 10. A replaced player is one who participated during the previous down, has been replaced by a substitute and has left the field of play and the end zones.

The player in the case play in question here has not been "... replaced by a substitute" and by rule definition is not a replaced player.

The referenced AR has another condition that is not present here in that the player who returned was not inside the nines.  IMO it simply does not apply in this case.

You asked a question, and were given the answer. If you don't believe me/us, I/we can't help you.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Is there anyone in the "us" category out there who can shed some light on where we get the concept that a player who leaves the field automatically becomes a "replaced player" despite the clear definition in Rule 2 that requires 3 very specific criteria to be a replaced player:

1. participated during the previous down,
2. has been replaced by a substitute and
3. has left the field of play and the end zones

We have always required all three of the criteria be met to be a replaced player since that is what the rule actually states.

[NVFOA_Ump]

So since no one wants to take a shot here's my read of the AR referenced and why it does not apply:

AR 3-5-2-IV. 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).

My view of this AR is that the applicable rule that was violated here is actually 7-1-3 b:

Nine-Yard Marks. 1. Each Team A substitute must have been between the nine-yard marks.

The player in question here meets the Rule 2 definition of substitute:

Substitute ARTICLE 9. a. A legal substitute is a replacement for a player or a player vacancy during the interval between downs.

When A81 "mistakenly" leaves the field of play and enters his team area he leaves a vacancy on the field of play.  The applicable definition applies two different criteria to substitute and when he comes back in he meets the 2nd one - he's filling a player vacancy.  Since we all know that for an incoming substitute to become a player, he must come inside the nine yard marks, therefore we have a foul by A81.

As Kalle noted in the other substitution thread, our rules require us to weave together all of the sections to arrive at the correct result and by using rules 2, 3, and 7 we have confirmed the AR result - a 5 yard substitution foul.  The AR does not need to have a "replaced player" imputed to it since by definition there is no "replaced player" involved here.

[TXMike]

Again....maybe not a defining guidance document, but the 2012 Redding Study Guide clearly says that by entering the team area, even if he did so mistakenly, the player loses his "right" to come back onto the field.

[RedTD]

Fourth and 5 at the B-40. Team B sends in a punt return team while Team A is lining up in what appears to be a scrimmage kick formation. Team A then rushes their normal offensive team back in. R gives the iron cross, U gets on the ball and when Team B puts its defensive team back in - we are flagging this? Maybe I am not reading the responses properly but in some posts it appears to me that is what folks are lobbying for. 

[NVFOA_Ump]

Again....maybe not a defining guidance document, but the 2012 Redding Study Guide clearly says that by entering the team area, even if he did so mistakenly, the player loses his "right" to come back onto the field.

Isn't the priority order that we use:

1.  The actual rules
2.  The AR's as applicable to the specific set of circumstances in the AR
3.  Additional official guidance when 1 and 2 still leave unanswered questions or conflicting results

If we are now going to say that when any player leaves the field he has "lost" his right to come back on the field (for one play) then my opinion of that is it plain and simple is not supported by the actual rules or the AR's.  That one requires a rule change of some kind.

[clydesummers]

Where rules are not specific to any play situation or do not fit into the round hole, one might be required to rely on the intent of the rule(s). I do not see that in this situation there was any unfair advantage gained by the 'replacement?' player returning to the field. In fairness to both teams one might just make a 'no call' and let the game proceed.
Consider: A10 breaks a chin strap during a play, goes to his sideline and gets a replacement chin strap, returns to the field and within the 40 second play clock runs the next play. Do you penalize A10 for abiding by the rules regarding equipment? I say no....there is no unfair advantage....let them play. Do we make a new rule covering this situation and every other situation that can/might arise? From all the discussions above this thread there is not a consensus nor from what I can read....one single rule that is specific enough to actually make a correct ruling.

[El Macman]

Fourth and 5 at the B-40. Team B sends in a punt return team while Team A is lining up in what appears to be a scrimmage kick formation. Team A then rushes their normal offensive team back in. R gives the iron cross, U gets on the ball and when Team B puts its defensive team back in - we are flagging this? Maybe I am not reading the responses properly but in some posts it appears to me that is what folks are lobbying for.

If any of the 'normal offensive team' are personnel that were in the game on the previous down (and left the field), Team A will have fouled (at the snap). If Team B reciprocates by sending the folks that were in the game on the previous down back in, that will be offsetting fouls (at the snap). Team B just needs to know the rules well enough to know that, if Team A sends their previous down personnel back into the game, that they (Team A) will commit a foul at the snap, so just leave the folks in that are already in. By the same token, if Team A has enough personnel, they may have found a workaround in the rules to get some sort of mismatch of personnel on the field, i.e., second offense versus B's punt return team, or second defense. But Team A still has to give Team B opportunity to match up, even if the personnel are not of equal ability. And they have to get all of their personnel changes completed before the play clock expires.