Vandy Kentucky Hide Out Play

[JoeS]

Does anyone have the video of this play?  I cannot imagine how this could be legal at it describes a "hide-out" play.

http://www.tennessean.com/story/sports/college/vanderbilt/2015/11/14/vandy-trick-play-sneaky-pete-fools-kentucky-td/75723860/

[JasonTX]

As someone said previously on here, "Would you be willing to run this play to the other sideline?"

[Andrew McCarthy]

They send 11 in from the sideline following a TO. One player does a U-turn when he gets to the numbers then crouches down near the sideline.

Should be a 15 yard UNS.

[Aussie-Zebra]

s

[Kalle]

Actually, I think this is a legal play. The 9-yard requirement is for exactly this type of substitution. Team B is given full notice that the wideout did come in and establish himself as a player. It is their fault for not observing where team A players line up.

[Osric Pureheart]

If this play is not legal, then what is the point of the 9-yard marks?

[Andrew McCarthy]

By that logic the Michigan play is legal.

[Kalle]

By that logic the Michigan play is legal.

Different situation. In the Michigan play a player pretended to be a replaced player and didn't leave. In this play an incoming substitute comes in with other substitutes, comes inside the 9-yard markers, and then sets up in formation, thus becoming a player. When he entered the field, team B knew that either he must become a player or foul by going back into his team area before the snap. Team B chose to ignore him.

If the hideout had been a player from the previous down, went close to his team area before the mass substitution and then did the same action, then I probably would have a foul, as then the defense could be deceived to cover him although he might actually be a replaced player.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Would have to see this to make a judgment.  If team A is huddling "on the sideline" but in the vicinity of the 9's and the "hidden player" just takes a step or two in a crowd to get the 9's then "heads out" like he's leaving then I've got a flag.

If the huddle is truly on the sideline and not on the field right near the 9's and he clearly comes inside the 9's before then heading back out, then maybe he's good?  I still subscribe to the "if it won't work toward the other team's sideline" then it's illegal.  IMHO any scripted play that utilizes the substitution process in any form is illegal if it wouldn't work on the opposite side of the field.

[Andrew McCarthy]

Team B is looking across and sees a pack of players coming in.  They do not see the 11th guy because he essentially hid behind the other players and blended back into the sideline.

[bossman72]

Question is: when was the RFP blown?  If he touched up after the RFP was blown, this might be legal.  If the RFP was blown after he touched up, then I would have an ILF foul.

[Joe Stack]

In this play an incoming substitute comes in with other substitutes, comes inside the 9-yard markers, and then sets up in formation, thus becoming a player.

It doesn't matter. The rule reads:

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

How is this not a "tactic associated with the ... substitution process?" The rule is meant to be interpreted broadly, not narrowly. The only way you can have a legal "hideout play" (and it isn't really that) is to do it without substituting.

[Kalle]

It doesn't matter. The rule reads:

How is this not a "tactic associated with the ... substitution process?" The rule is meant to be interpreted broadly, not narrowly. The only way you can have a legal "hideout play" (and it isn't really that) is to do it without substituting.

If this play is illegal, what is the point of having rule 7-1-3-b-1?

[Joe Stack]

Please answer my question first: how does this play not have anything to do with the substitution process?

Simply because there are 2 rules that seem to coincide on certain things does not mean that if you comply with one you're good on the other.

[Kalle]

Please answer my question first: how does this play not have anything to do with the substitution process?

I do hear what you're saying (and I'm usually the first to say a substitution related trick play is illegal), but: how far in must the wideout come for this kind of play to be legal? I say that the 9-yard rule is just for this type of action.

Anybody want to send this play in to RR?

[Osric Pureheart]

If we really want to start getting into rules lawyering:

Please answer my question first: how does this play not have anything to do with the substitution process?

We'd need to see the entire dead-ball period, but if 11 players go towards the sideline and never leave the field, and the same 11 players come back, and the rest of the sideline keeps clear of them, there surely hasn't been any substitution nor attempt to simulate same...

[Kalle]

If we really want to start getting into rules lawyering:

We'd need to see the entire dead-ball period, but if 11 players go towards the sideline and never leave the field, and the same 11 players come back, and the rest of the sideline keeps clear of them, there surely hasn't been any substitution nor attempt to simulate same...

Actually I would have a flag on that, if one of the 11 then did this same kind of action (or stayed at the sideline). I'm assuming that here all 11 incoming uniformed squad members are actually substitutes. If the wideout is in fact a player from the previous down (and 1-10 of the others are substitutes), then I'd flag this.

The more I think of this, the more I'm annoyed with the existence of 7-1-3-b-1. With it in the books it implies to me that although 9-2-2-b says "no tactic associated with the substitution process", if you comply with 7-1-3-b-1 you could use those types of tactics. I would be much happier with two blanket statements "don't try to hide players at your sideline" and "don't try to fool the defense into thinking that the snap isn't imminent."

[Aussie-Zebra]

We'd need to see the entire dead-ball period, but if 11 players go towards the sideline and never leave the field, and the same 11 players come back, and the rest of the sideline keeps clear of them, there surely hasn't been any substitution nor attempt to simulate same...

 

[wlemonnier]

We'll see what RR says as the play is being sent to him for his view.  Yes, the 9-yard mark rule was met but you still have these players entering as substitutes and then one heads back to the sideline.  9-2-2-b would imply this is a foul for unfair acts. 

As stated on the UM play... if this tactic is legal, then run it to your opponent's side of the field.  Better yet, run it without substituting, but then it wouldn't be a hideout play or work very well.

[Aussie-Zebra]

Thank Bill,

But what defines a substitute ? How can players who don't leave the field between downs be defined as substitutes ?

After a timeout are all 11 players classed as substitutes ?

[DallasLJ]

Thank Bill,

But what defines a substitute ? How can players who don't leave the field between downs be defined as substitutes ?

After a timeout are all 11 players classed as substitutes ?
[/quote
  Thus the reason why 9-2-2 also refer to "simulating" the substitution process.

[Aussie-Zebra]

   Thus the reason why 9-2-2 also refer to "simulating" the substitution process.

Not at all
Check the dictionary for simulate and you get => to imitate the appearance of, or pretend.
This is clearly shown in the Michigan hideout play where they pretend to substitute a player, clearly simulating a substitution and clearly a foul.
That does not occur in this play.

[yarnnelg]

I saw it as legal. He went to the top of the numbers and "U" turned. It was so bad he didn't even go all the way to the sideline. Just blown coverage.

In the days before the wings were off the field, I've seen this play with the receiver behind the HL or LJ, because the wing wasn't paying attention. Of course, I've seen touchdowns called at the five yard line too....