Substitution with intent to deceive

[BrendanP]

I'm not even sure what happened on that play.

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2015/11/07/intent-to-deceive-michigan-called-for-strange-penalty-vs-rutgers-video/

[Bwest]

Very obvious, but good on the officials for getting it right so this won't trickle to lower levels.

[DallasLJ]

Made this very same call in a Freshman game last Thursday.  Took awhile to explain it to the coach -- but he finally understood.  UNS all the way.

[BrendanP]

So what part of this is illegal? The shift? Lining up so close to the sideline?

[chaoslord]

So what part of this is illegal? The shift? Lining up so close to the sideline?

9-2-2-b
No simulated replacements or substitutions may be used to confuse opponents. No tactic associated with substitutes or the substitution process may be used to confuse opponents

Butt is pretending he is a late to leave sub (Oh crap I'm supposed to be leaving too!). It's an obvious illegal hideout play.

[NJOfficial]

Of course Harbaugh thinks he didn't do anything wrong.

[Kalle]

This is so obviously A.R. 9-2-2-III that there should always be flag and no coach in their right mind could honestly claim that he doesn't know that it is illegal.

[Bwest]

So what part of this is illegal? The shift? Lining up so close to the sideline?

Simply put, you can't use the substitution process in any way to try to gain an advantage over the defense

[TxSkyBolt]

Simply put, you can't use the substitution process in any way to try to gain an advantage over the defense

Except to put better players in. :-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BrendanP]

Of course Harbaugh thinks he didn't do anything wrong.

Yeah he was saying in the postgame show that the official said that if the defense leaves a guy uncovered, that it's automatically a 15-yard penalty. "So all you corners out there might want to tell your coaches that you need to leave one guy uncovered and sell out on the run because you're either going to stop him for a loss or get a 15-yard penalty going your way." That's code in my mind that says, "Time to pull out the rulebook, see if I can find the play on YouTube, and post this one to RefStripes"

I only saw the play once and I didn't see the shift. (That was probably by design  )

Didn't Notre Dame get away with this a few years ago? Let's suppose the offense here doesn't sub anybody in from the previous play. #88 heads out and lines up two yards from the sideline and nobody bothers to cover him. Still 

[DallasLJ]

Yeah he was saying in the postgame show that the official said that if the defense leaves a guy uncovered, that it's automatically a 15-yard penalty. "So all you corners out there might want to tell your coaches that you need to leave one guy uncovered and sell out on the run because you're either going to stop him for a loss or get a 15-yard penalty going your way." That's code in my mind that says, "Time to pull out the rulebook, see if I can find the play on YouTube, and post this one to RefStripes"

I only saw the play once and I didn't see the shift. (That was probably by design  )

Didn't Notre Dame get away with this a few years ago? Let's suppose the offense here doesn't sub anybody in from the previous play. #88 heads out and lines up two yards from the sideline and nobody bothers to cover him. Still 

  Possibly and probably still a flag.  Covered or uncovered does not matter.  The rules says using the substitution process, or simulating the substitution process.  So, if in your question #88 heads towards his sideline and is facing the sideline towards his bench -- and turns up at teh snap -- that is a flag.  By rule, whether he is covered or not.  I would understand those that do not want to flag is the defense covers it because you could argue no advantage -- but I think this is the kind of play (hideout) that they want our of the game -- so I flag it every time I see it.

[Rulesman]

What amazes me is the fact there are coaches who still try to pull this off.

[Kalle]

Didn't Notre Dame get away with this a few years ago? Let's suppose the offense here doesn't sub anybody in from the previous play. #88 heads out and lines up two yards from the sideline and nobody bothers to cover him. Still 

If the team is doing a simulated substitution, then yes. See http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=12262.0 for an example.

[The Roamin' Umpire]

Of course Harbaugh thinks he didn't do anything wrong.

Pretty sure Harbaugh *never* thinks he does anything wrong.

[wlemonnier]

How come when teams "legally" run a play like this they never do it to their opponent's side of the field???   

[backjudge79]

ANN ARBOR -- On Monday, Harbaugh was still upset about the penalty. Not only because he phoned the league office to see if this was legal weeks ago, but also because of the accusation of deception with regard to the rules.

"I take the rules very seriously and understanding the rules, understanding the consistency and clarity of the rules. And not just with rules, but with the spirit of the rules and doing everything we can to follow the rules," Harbaugh said. "I said I was offended after the game to have unsportsmanlike conduct called on us, and the language that they used was offensive. We take it very seriously to know what to teach our players and tell our team.

"There's no rule in the rulebook that you can go back to and say we broke. In fact, we asked for an interpretation weeks ago and followed it to the best of our ability. It needs specifics, you know?"

http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2015/11/jim_harbaugh_wants_more_clarit.html#incart_river

[Etref]

Betcha he did not mention this play in the pregame conference 

[jlharris]

"...more clarification" needed?  How about DON'T USE THE ACT OF SUBSTITUTION TO DISGUISE A PLAYER LINED UP NEAR THE SIDELINE. 

[Legacy Zebra]

There's no rule in the rulebook that you can go back to and say we broke.

I guess Jim's book just skips over 9-2-2-b and especially AR 9-2-2-III

[Kalle]

I would like to have the league to publicly state that the league office never said this play was legal. Harbaugh would get the clarity he so much likes. Isn't there something about lying in public in the coaching ethics?

[ncwingman]

"So all you corners out there might want to tell your coaches that you need to leave one guy uncovered and sell out on the run because you're either going to stop him for a loss or get a 15-yard penalty going your way."

Is he being willfully ignorant of the rules, or does he really not know? I can't actually tell. It's one thing to say something like that to the official during the heat of the game, but to repeat it later during the postgame press conference?

I mean, I've dealt with coaches who have feigned ignorance of any rule that they break or have to argue against every call that goes against them, no matter how obvious it was. However, for a man in his position, there's no way he can possibly be that ignorant of the rule book.

[chaoslord]

However, for a man in his position, there's no way he can possibly be that ignorant of the rule book.

You might be giving him too much credit! I mean, he did get confused about where his team took over after a missed field goal when they were playing Utah... 

(Yeah, I know, that's a difference between NCAA/NFL. Just a joke.)