Illegal substitution philosophy in Texas A&M game

[Birddog]

Didn't the R announce  " contact"?

Yes he said contact, but in the context of the game and what happened on the previous play, he was pretty flustered.  He may of intentionally said contact but my feeling is he just messed up, but could be wrong. 

Using 9-2-3 in this case doesn't seem to fit.  I can see using it in a situation like the Alamo Bowl with Michigan and the umpteen backward passes where chaos erupted, but this wasn't anything like that.

[The Ref Thats Lef]

Here is both plays

[psv]

:01 of the 2nd quarter in the video section:

http://espn.go.com/ncf/video?gameId=400548023

He clearly says "During the play, we have unsportsmanlike contact on the Texas A&M Bench....."

Reading both 9-2-3 and 9-2-5, 9-2-5 definitely fits much better there.  He announced they were on the field, but other contact like that has fallen under 9-2-5 before.  But, either one gives them one the ability to deal with interfering with game admin.

9-2-3 is the only thing that lets them enforce it from where ever they want, but we are guessing.  For all we know they could have messed up the enforcement.  I personally doubt they did, but you never know. 

I would love to hear an explanation from someone in the know

[psv]

Here is both plays

At :34, :35, :36, :37, :39 I am only counting 11.  I dont see the 12th in the LOS area.  :39 and :40 give you the end zone view and I am still only counting 11.  The view is far, so certainly folks standing close to one another would be hard to see... but it seems like, from these frames, the first one shouldnt have been taken off.

[Welpe]

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong but I seem to remember an edict passed down a few years ago after one of these incidents that it was correct to enforce this as a live ball UNS foul via the unfair act rule.

Can somebody share documentation or an interpretation saying that we should not call the illegal substitution as a dead ball foul in this situation? It makes sense but I don't recall ever seeing that. It's a little tough to keep up with all of the different interpretations issued over the years.

[TXMike]

I had not seen the video until I saw it at the post above.  #1 - Why is the crew worried about giving B a chance to match up?  There is an AR right on this point that says it is up to B to react without our assistance.  # 2 -  Looks like only the S flagged the "12 on defense" (which there was not).  But if he 'saw" 12 in the formation he was right to shut it down as a dead ball foul.

This video does not shed much light on the UNS foul since they never show a replay and on the live action, the flag is already down before that part of the field comes into view so we do not know what happened.  He did not say "unsportsmanlike contact"  for no reason at all.  There was likely contact and he was thinking about what had been reported so likely inadvertently shortened his announcement from "Unsportsmanlike conduct for contacting and official" to "unsportsmanlike contact". 

[TxSkyBolt]

A couple of other observations. The R holds the snap up for offense substitution. I believe RR has indicated that this is not a case where the defense has a chance to match up (late in a half, FG obvious).
Secondly, there are only 11 defensive players on the field when the whistle for ILS is sounded so that is an incorrect call.

[BankerRef]

I had not seen the video until I saw it at the post above.  #1 - Why is the crew worried about giving B a chance to match up?  There is an AR right on this point that says it is up to B to react without our assistance.  # 2 -  Looks like only the S flagged the "12 on defense" (which there was not).  But if he 'saw" 12 in the formation he was right to shut it down as a dead ball foul.

This video does not shed much light on the UNS foul since they never show a replay and on the live action, the flag is already down before that part of the field comes into view so we do not know what happened.  He did not say "unsportsmanlike contact"  for no reason at all.  There was likely contact and he was thinking about what had been reported so likely inadvertently shortened his announcement from "Unsportsmanlike conduct for contacting and official" to "unsportsmanlike contact".

He also announces that "by rule" the penalty is enforced from the spot where the flag is and we know that isn't the case.  I wouldn't hang my hat on his announcement to conclude that there was any actual contact.  I also believe the H thought the score would count and either the R or S determined differently.  Either way confusion reigned.

I have seen officials contacted and even taken down many times and have never seen 9-2-3 applied as live ball unless the non-player actions also affected the players on the field.

[psv]

AR 3-5-2 VIII and IX.

RULING for VIII - Team B should reasonably expect that Team A will attempt a field goal in this situation and should have its field-goal defense unit ready.  The umpire will not stand over the ball, as there should be no issue of the defense being uncertain about the next play.

[gofor2]

To say nothing of the 3 guys A&M had lined up over the guard, that after blasting him, allowed their teammate to block the kick......

[TXMike]

From the 2014 Mechanics Manual:
Mechanics Points of Emphasis

2.1 Coaches’ Sideline Management and Control
Since 2011, keeping the working area (six-foot white border) clear of coaches and players while the ball is in play has been a Point of Emphasis.  Although some teams have made some progress, that area continues to be a Point of Emphasis for 2014. Officials will be instructed to aggressively enforce the rule, especially during live-ball action.

Coaches will be allowed to only step to the sideline to call offensive and defensive signals after all action has ceased. That working space (six-foot white border) is intended to allow officials to adequately perform their duties; to protect the safety of officials, players and coaches; and to allow teams to demonstrate good sportsmanship within the team area.

There is no place for the excessive demonstrations that are occurring after plays by coaches and/or players coming onto the field of play, and there is no reason anyone should be on the field even during dead-ball action unless allowed by rule, such as to attend to an injured player.

......

The NCAA Football Rules Committee has instructed officials to be more diligent in their observations of those actions and they are instructed to flag violations of the rule when it occurs in an area they can observe.
Officials have also been instructed to aggressively enforce Rule 9-2-5 dealing with sideline and coaching box violations. Coaches are expected to set an appropriate, professional example for their players, fans and the many others who watch the game and to intervene when they see members of their team exhibit behavior that is not acceptable under the Sportsmanship guidelines of the Football Code.

[BankerRef]

To say nothing of the 3 guys A&M had lined up over the guard, that after blasting him, allowed their teammate to block the kick......

If they had all three blasted the guard you would be correct.  One blew up the tackle.

[wlemonnier]

A couple of thoughts to consider... it was mentioned that prior to the field goal attempt Team A substituted and the R/U held Team A because of the substitution.  Per Mechanics Manual, page 53: "These procedures, which are intended to prevent the defense from being unable to match up during normal scrimmage situations, should not be used in the case of a substitution for a last-second field goal.... The defense should be prepared to respond appropriately.  In no case should the U (or CJ) be standing over the ball to prevent the snap as the clock runs out."   

Philosophy on whether this should be a live ball or dead ball foul for Team B substitution on potentially the last play of the half... if it's that close, let it go live and if the field goal is good, decline the penalty.  Field goal is no good, 5 yard penalty and probably an un-timed down.  Give the offended team the best of both options.  "You just got the count of 12 after the snap" is your response.  Last year a similar play happened and took a field goal off the board and after the ILS penalty from 5 yards closer, Team A missed the kick.  Team B gains a huge advantage if this is called a dead ball foul.  If it's early in the pre-snap and "B" has 12 in position that's one thing to call it a dead ball foul, but if you haven't called it until the snap or just after... go live ball ILS on a last second field goal attempt.

Last item... looks like Team B only has 11 players on the field... 12th man ran off as the SJ came in to double Umpire. Whistle, flag appears to come after the snap.  Should have been a live ball foul... correction, should have been a no-call unless you can show 12 on the field.

Substitution mechanics, counting players, announcements... all things in our control.  Don't give things away you can control.  Next time you pre-game it might be smart to discuss these and other things.  This isn't criticism, it's a teachable moment.

[Txgarza]

I hadn't see. The clip. I couldn't help but laugh when the R is making his announcement on the illegal sub play. He starts off and when the fans start booing he sais no listen. I'm still laughing.

[TXMike]

As the R, whenever I have 1 official come to me with something that I know more than 1 should have had, I am asking them for some input.  S comes in with Team  B having 12 I am asking the F and B for some input (and maybe even the flank on team B sideline).  H comes in with illegal formation, I want some input from L to confirm this.  The only flag for the sub foul here was by the S.  Does not look like any other official participated in that. 

[BankerRef]

As the R, whenever I have 1 official come to me with something that I know more than 1 should have had, I am asking them for some input.  S comes in with Team  B having 12 I am asking the F and B for some input (and maybe even the flank on team B sideline).  H comes in with illegal formation, I want some input from L to confirm this.  The only flag for the sub foul here was by the S.  Does not look like any other official participated in that.

I don't disagree with that thought but what good does it do you in this case?  S had killed it.  If he hadn't killed it all this could have been fixed with the proper result. Once he killed the play no discussion can fix the damage.  Bill's advice is on target here.

[TXMike]

Not saying he should not have killed it.  But once that error was made, no need to keep compounding it. There was no foul on B and that should have been determined and waved off

Found this student video which shows what was happening during the return  Based on what I think I am seeing I would also question making this an Unfair Act foul  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdWovNDSpl4#t=39

[TxSkyBolt]

Would agree with you mike. Just a garden variety sideline interference, subsequent spot enforcement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[psv]

So, in review...

They should have never blown the first FG attempt dead because 1) that close to the snap just count it as a live ball foul since we have that option and (2) there actually wasnt 12 on defense.

They then compounded that by enforcing a sideline interference incorrectly (or at least a huge stretch).

But, maybe it was just a makeup call for taking the 3 points off the board for Rice... (I guess what I am trying to do is give the crew the benefit of the doubt that maybe they knew they messed up with the first good FG and not compound it by giving A&M a TD, so they used what they could... which was making the sideline interference a live ball foul).

[Kalle]

But, maybe it was just a makeup call for taking the 3 points off the board for Rice... (I guess what I am trying to do is give the crew the benefit of the doubt that maybe they knew they messed up with the first good FG and not compound it by giving A&M a TD, so they used what they could... which was making the sideline interference a live ball foul).

That's actually the worst thing an official can do, so you're not giving the benefit there. Intentionally making a bad call is cheating, and an official should never cheat.

[bossman72]

First thing, Rogers needs to make all defensive ILS fouls live ball.  Eliminates all confusion / judgment.

Second, on the sideline interference, this is treated as a dead ball foul.  Should be enforced on 2nd half kickoff.  Remember, treating UNS as a live ball common foul only applies to PLAYERS.  Here, non-players committed the UNS.

Does everybody remember USC / Utah the first year that rule came out?  USC blocks game winning field goal and team rushes the field as they return it for a TD.  Crew throws a UNS and takes the TD off the board.  The conference then changes the score about 2 hrs later.  For the gamblers, this meant that USC now covered the spread.  Vegas was a mess!

[TXMike]

Agree with making the ILS a live ball foul.

But on the sideline deal,  I think that would have been enforced on the try.  I have to look for it but I think we have something from a few years ago where this came up and it does not qualify for the choice by offended team of try or KO.  Has to go to the try.  And why are you calling it UNS if it was the first violation?

[dvasques]

Didn't ILS just got changed to dead ball foul so the defense won't have the advantage of having 12 on the field, ahead at the end of the game, and burn the clock with the offensive play?

[James]

I finally looked at this tread and had a few thoughts. My first was that maybe the ILS was for a Sub coming on the field and off again - but the time on the video fore the whistle seems too long for that.

Then I was thinking the penalty on the blocked kick could have been leaping for the guy who blocked it - looked like he then landed on the back of a teammate - but that would have been a real tragic mistake to have the announcement and enforcement that came, so probably not what happened.

My impression of the (hard to see) student video that was posted was that the LM was drifting onto the the field and someone ran through his shoulder going to celebrate.

Not that it has anything to do with the conversation, but does anyone have an explanation as to why (in the vimeo video) right at the TD, an obvious player (#70) can be seen at the EZ sideline (time 3:46)?

[tx29]

 hEaDbAnGLet's have a moratorium on getting on threads and dog piling a crew before we've even seen the play, please.  Yes they made some mistakes but let's learn from them and be better officials after seeing this.  As I read the thread I saw a bunch of wrong information, assumptions and incorrect rulings that were given without even first seeing all of the play.   Personally, I want to see us get them all right but let's get all the info before we commence with the nut kicking.