Snapper Replaced

[JasonTX]

On a Try, Team A is all set and ready to go in a "swinging gate" formation with A55 having his hands on the ball as the snapper.  Team A sends in several subs and A55, in smooth manner, rises up and departs to the team area with A70 taking his place to be the snapper.  Ruling?

[Kalle]

False start. Rule 7-1-3-a-1.

[ElvisLives]

False start. Rule 7-1-3-a-1.

Kalle, I am certainly not arguing against you, but, I’m not sure the rule language actually supports that conclusion. The rule says he can’t change position, but it doesn’t say he can’t depart and be replaced. Does that count as “changing position?” I don’t know. That would take an interpretation from Shaw. Personally, if I saw the snapper move directly off the field and a substitute enter the field, and that substitute, or any other player, becomes the snapper, I don’t think I would penalize that.
I might be wrong in doing so, but, I don’t know that authoritatively.

[Kalle]

Isn't the intent of the rule to prevent the snapper from moving at all? If so, isn't it less of an offense if he moves two yards to the left than all the way to his sideline? But yes, I agree that the rule is ambiguous and Shaw might rule that being substituted is not "moving to a different position."

[JasonTX]

And this did happen last year in a HS game last year and so the crew was asking me about it for this year.  I just sent Shaw an email so hopefully a quick response.  If not, I suggested to not flag it until we get an interpretation.

[dammitbobby]

I would think if the intent was to not have the snapper move without penalty, that him moving completely off the field would still be viewed as moving, if for no other reason than you can't get to the side of the field, without moving.

[ElvisLives]

Isn't the intent of the rule to prevent the snapper from moving at all? If so, isn't it less of an offense if he moves two yards to the left than all the way to his sideline? But yes, I agree that the rule is ambiguous and Shaw might rule that being substituted is not "moving to a different position."

Well, I did what I should have done before and that is consult Dave Nelson’s “Anatomy of a Game.” In 1978, according to Mr. Nelson, the snapper became prohibited from moving to a different position, in an attempt to cut down on trick plays that might confuse the defense.
So, that being the case, it strikes me that, the snapper leaving the field, is really no different than simply changing position. That could be part of a trick play. So, I now am in the “illegal” camp.

[Grant - AR]

I might be in the minority here, but this seems like it could be a case of the rules getting in the way of football common sense.  If everything is smooth and there is no deception, why stop the game and penalize a team when there is no advantage gained?  This might be a foul by the strict reading of the rules, but we don't use the strict reading of the rules in a lot of other circumstances like holding, pass interference, etc.  Unless I'm missing something in the description, I say just let the players sub out and keep on playing.  No harm, no foul. 

[Etref]

I might be in the minority here, but this seems like it could be a case of the rules getting in the way of football common sense.  If everything is smooth and there is no deception, why stop the game and penalize a team when there is no advantage gained?  This might be a foul by the strict reading of the rules, but we don't use the strict reading of the rules in a lot of other circumstances like holding, pass interference, etc.  Unless I'm missing something in the description, I say just let the players sub out and keep on playing.  No harm, no foul. 

My feeling is that if not penalized, even though smooth the next time they run it there will be deception. Stop it before it starts.

[ElvisLives]

I might be in the minority here, but this seems like it could be a case of the rules getting in the way of football common sense.  If everything is smooth and there is no deception, why stop the game and penalize a team when there is no advantage gained?  This might be a foul by the strict reading of the rules, but we don't use the strict reading of the rules in a lot of other circumstances like holding, pass interference, etc.  Unless I'm missing something in the description, I say just let the players sub out and keep on playing.  No harm, no foul.

When it comes to coaches, there is no common sense, only gaining an advantage. Nelson also explained how the rules didn’t specify the size of jersey numbers, but the rule regarding being on the LOS required linemen’s heads to break a line through the bottom of the snapper’s numbers. So, Joe Paterno (and others) got jerseys with extra tall numbers that literally extended down the tops of the pants. So, they had to change the rule to specify that linemen’s heads had to break a line drawn through the waistline of the snapper. “The Rules Committee was still trying to stay ahead of the coaches.” Never-ending battle.

[Grant - AR]

My feeling is that if not penalized, even though smooth the next time they run it there will be deception. Stop it before it starts.

I don't disagree with this, but I can see where a warning to the head coach could suffice.  If this is just a mistake by a player not realizing he wasn't supposed to touch the ball before the substitution, a warning would prevent it in the future. 

[Grant - AR]

When it comes to coaches, there is no common sense, only gaining an advantage. Nelson also explained how the rules didn’t specify the size of jersey numbers, but the rule regarding being on the LOS required linemen’s heads to break a line through the bottom of the snapper’s numbers. So, Joe Paterno (and others) got jerseys with extra tall numbers that literally extended down the tops of the pants. So, they had to change the rule to specify that linemen’s heads had to break a line drawn through the waistline of the snapper. “The Rules Committee was still trying to stay ahead of the coaches.” Never-ending battle.

No doubt coaches are trying to find an advantage in almost every situation, but I can see this situation as a simple error that could be fixed by talking to the coach and letting him know it can't happen again.

[dammitbobby]

Except the philosophy/officiating standard for trick or gadget plays is they they must be executing perfectly, from a rules perspective. I don't think I would give a coach/player/team any grace on this, for that reason.

[bossman72]

This is a foul.  The intent of the rule is that when the snapper is established, he's locked in.  Very similar to a restricted lineman in a 3 point stance.  They can't go anywhere, so neither should the snapper once he touches the ball.

[Grant - AR]

Except the philosophy/officiating standard for trick or gadget plays is they they must be executing perfectly, from a rules perspective. I don't think I would give a coach/player/team any grace on this, for that reason.

What part of this play is a trick or gadget play (unless I'm picturing the play differently than it was)?

[dammitbobby]

The fact that it's a swinging gate formation IMO makes it a trick/gadget play.

[Grant - AR]

The fact that it's a swinging gate formation IMO makes it a trick/gadget play.

Fair enough.