From another thread (in part) Illegal touching or Illegal participation or

[juxone]

 " Illegal touching (NFHS: 7-5-13 describes "Illegal Touching" as, "An ineligible A player has illegally touched a FORWARD PASS if he batts. muffs of catches a LEGAL FORWARD PASS........"   
BUT
From rule 2-32-15 "a substitute becomes a player when he communicates with a teammate or a game official, enters the huddle, is positioned in a formation or participates in a play.??

SO If A44 (who would otherwise be eligible enters the game as a substitute during a dead ball down, BUT never gets inside the number (thus establishing himself as a player) then following the snap catches a forward pass would it be an illegal substitution, illegal participation, or Illegal touching??   

[CalhounLJ]

" Illegal touching (NFHS: 7-5-13 describes "Illegal Touching" as, "An ineligible A player has illegally touched a FORWARD PASS if he batts. muffs of catches a LEGAL FORWARD PASS........"   
BUT
From rule 2-32-15 "a substitute becomes a player when he communicates with a teammate or a game official, enters the huddle, is positioned in a formation or participates in a play.??

SO If A44 (who would otherwise be eligible enters the game as a substitute during a dead ball down, BUT never gets inside the number (thus establishing himself as a player) then following the snap catches a forward pass would it be an illegal substitution, illegal participation, or Illegal touching??   
.

[CalhounLJ]

None of the above. Illegal formation. A sub doesn’t have to be inside the numbers to become a player. He can simply line up in the formation even if he does so illegally. He’s still a player and he’s still eligible


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[juxone]

None of the above. Illegal formation. A sub doesn’t have to be inside the numbers to become a player. He can simply line up in the formation even if he does so illegally. He’s still a player and he’s still eligible


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OK now I am about as clear as mud on this one..
7-2-1 Says :ART. 1 . . . After the ball is marked ready for play, each player of A who participated in the previous down and each substitute for A must have
been, momentarily, between the 9-yard marks, before the snap.

Since the numbers are the at the 9 yard and the player came onto the field and participated by going down field to catch a pass-- why would this not be Illegal participation, since the player did not go past the numbers? 

[GA Umpire]

Since the numbers are the at the 9 yard and the player came onto the field and participated by going down field to catch a pass-- why would this not be Illegal participation, since the player did not go past the numbers? 

See the PENALTY for Article 1 at the end of Section 2.  "Illegal Formation - (S19) - 5 yards.

Illegal Participation is not mentioned.

[juxone]

See the PENALTY for Article 1 at the end of Section 2.  "Illegal Formation - (S19) - 5 yards.

Illegal Participation is not mentioned.

  ok, thanks for helping me unfog the brain. If the receiver had stepped out of bounds and then returned it would be Illegal participation But in this case he was a legal player ... appreciate the input.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Since the numbers are the at the 9 yard and the player came onto the field and participated by going down field to catch a pass-- why would this not be Illegal participation, since the player did not go past the numbers? 

If a substitute does not become a player by getting inside the 9's and then participates as described here we have a 9-6-4 Illegal Participation.

[CalhounLJ]

ok, thanks for helping me unfog the brain. If the receiver had stepped out of bounds and then returned it would be Illegal participation But in this case he was a legal player ... appreciate the input.

Remember it’s not being inside the 9 that make a sub a player. That has nothing to do with it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ncwingman]

Here's a different take on the same basic question.

A lines up with 10 players on the field. After the snap A76 runs on the field and catches a legal forward pass.

If it was 3rd or 4th down, B might prefer that this be enforced as illegal touching (with loss of down) rather than illegal participation. Do you have the option as to which foul this is?

Note that A76 is ineligible by number (obviously) but also by position as he was not on the end of the line or obviously a back at the snap, so the illegal participant would be an ineligible receiver even with an eligible number.

Essentially, does 9-6-4a overrule 7-5-13?

[NVFOA_Ump]

Remember it’s not being inside the 9 that make a sub a player. That has nothing to do with it.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Except that's not what Rule 7-2-1 says:

RULE 7, SECTION 2 - FORMATION/POSITION, NUMBERING AND ACTION AT THE SNAP
ART. 1 . . . After the ball is marked ready for play, each player of A who participated in the previous down and each substitute for A must have been, momentarily, between the 9-yard marks, before the snap.

Doesn't the "substitute" have to meet ALL of the rules criteria for becoming a player?  Inside the 9's is only one of them but it is required along with the others.

[juxone]

Except that's not what Rule 7-2-1 says:

RULE 7, SECTION 2 - FORMATION/POSITION, NUMBERING AND ACTION AT THE SNAP
ART. 1 . . . After the ball is marked ready for play, each player of A who participated in the previous down and each substitute for A must have been, momentarily, between the 9-yard marks, before the snap.

Doesn't the "substitute" have to meet ALL of the rules criteria for becoming a player?  Inside the 9's is only one of them but it is required along with the others.

That question is exactly what had me confused.. so the answer "See the PENALTY for Article 1 at the end of Section 2.  "Illegal Formation - (S19) - 5 yards.
Illegal Participation is not mentioned."  Helped since as he said in the penalty Illegal Participation is not mentioned..  So my conclusion is since the substitute was not between the 9 it would make it an illegal formation---- I THINK!!!

[juxone]

Here's a different take on the same basic question.

A lines up with 10 players on the field. After the snap A76 runs on the field and catches a legal forward pass.

If it was 3rd or 4th down, B might prefer that this be enforced as illegal touching (with loss of down) rather than illegal participation. Do you have the option as to which foul this is?

Note that A76 is ineligible by number (obviously) but also by position as he was not on the end of the line or obviously a back at the snap, so the illegal participant would be an ineligible receiver even with an eligible number.


Essentially, does 9-6-4a overrule 7-5-13?

You know .."Essentially, does 9-6-4a overrule 7-5-13?" is a darn good question..  thoughts folks?

[CalhounLJ]

Except that's not what Rule 7-2-1 says:

RULE 7, SECTION 2 - FORMATION/POSITION, NUMBERING AND ACTION AT THE SNAP
ART. 1 . . . After the ball is marked ready for play, each player of A who participated in the previous down and each substitute for A must have been, momentarily, between the 9-yard marks, before the snap.

Doesn't the "substitute" have to meet ALL of the rules criteria for becoming a player?  Inside the 9's is only one of them but it is required along with the others.

No. The rule that governs a substitute becoming a player is 2-32-15:

ART. 15 ... A substitute is a team member who may replace a player or fill a player vacancy. A substitute becomes a player when he enters the field and communicates with a teammate or a game official, enters the huddle, is positioned in a formation or participates in the play.

Notice this doesn’t mention anything about the 9 yard mark.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[juxone]

No. The rule that governs a substitute becoming a player is 2-32-15:

ART. 15 ... A substitute is a team member who may replace a player or fill a player vacancy. A substitute becomes a player when he enters the field and communicates with a teammate or a game official, enters the huddle, is positioned in a formation or participates in the play.

Notice this doesn’t mention anything about the 9 yard mark.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

        

[NVFOA_Ump]

OK - So we'll split hairs.  He's not a legal player until he's been inside the 9's.  So, yes he's an ILLEGAL player.  Calling him a player when he has complied with the single rule 2 definition IMHO is very misleading when trying to teach the substitution rules to new officials.  Call him anything that you like but if he's not inside the 9's at least briefly he is not legal to participate and influence the play.

IMHO this is another of those areas where NFHS could do us all a favor, especially those of us that annually train new officials, and put all of the language defining a LEGAL player in rule 2.  We have this discussion with our new recruits annually and it's a PITA.  What say you Ralph?

[CalhounLJ]

OK - So we'll split hairs.  He's not a legal player until he's been inside the 9's.  So, yes he's an ILLEGAL player.  Calling him a player when he has complied with the single rule 2 definition IMHO is very misleading when trying to teach the substitution rules to new officials.  Call him anything that you like but if he's not inside the 9's at least briefly he is not legal to participate and influence the play.

IMHO this is another of those areas where NFHS could do us all a favor, especially those of us that annually train new officials, and put all of the language defining a LEGAL player in rule 2.  We have this discussion with our new recruits annually and it's a PITA.  What say you Ralph?

I have to disagree with this. A player is legal when he fulfills the definition of a player. He can legally participate and influence the play as a legal player, even if he’s not inside the numbers. The only way you would call illegal participation in such a situation is if you determine they used this situation to hide out a receiver to deceive the defense. Even then he’s a legal player acting in an illegal way.

7.2.1 SITUATION A:

Following a second down play, A89 comes onto the field as a substitute for A93 but A89 stops 5 yards from the sideline as his team is ready to snap the ball. Following the snap, A89 goes down field and catches A1's legal forward pass for a first down.

RULING: This is an illegal formation and if the penalty is accepted it would be marked off from the previous spot. Depending upon the situation (see 9-6-4d), this could also be illegal participation. (9-6-4d)

The reason the “depending on the situation” part is there is because you have to use judgment to rule whether he is trying to hide out or not.

If he just lined up without coming inside, it’s just illegal formation, even if he participates and/or influences the play. He can catch a pass, run a route, block, run the ball, etc. The only foul that has been committed is illegal formation.

It only escalates to illegal participation if the team has used his position to intentionally try to deceive the defense. Hence the reference to 9-6-4d.

9-6-4d- it is illegal participation:
d. To use a player, replaced player, substitute, coach, athletic trainer or other attendant in a substitution or pretended substitution to deceive opponents at or immediately before the snap or free kick.

Notice the player option and then read the definition of a player again. When does a substitute become a player? When he is positioned in a formation. It doesn’t say positioned correctly.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[HLinNC]

is positioned in a formation or participates in the play.

No hairs to split at all.  Often we have to piece together several rules, maybe even a Fundamental, to achieve a ruling.  Maybe it is a pain but the effort to dig it out is what makes us better and more accomplished officials.

 Expecting new officials to divine all of it their first year would be asking too much anyway.  Snaps are way more important than every little detail and nuance in the book.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Again, IMHO splitting hairs.  We have this discussion repeatedly and the results don't change.  He's a "player" OK, but he's not legal on the down.  Regardless of what he does he gets some flavor of flag.  IMHO the requirement for an incoming substitute qualifying as a legal player should include all of the minimum requirements.

Enough said from my end - I still do not like the convoluted "judgment" process here and the holes left in trying to decide which if any foul(s) we have and why do we have them.  What problem is created if the 9's requirement is added to the the definitions?

[juxone]

Again, IMHO splitting hairs.  We have this discussion repeatedly and the results don't change.  He's a "player" OK, but he's not legal on the down.  Regardless of what he does he gets some flavor of flag.  IMHO the requirement for an incoming substitute qualifying as a legal player should include all of the minimum requirements.

Enough said from my end - I still do not like the convoluted "judgment" process here and the holes left in trying to decide which if any foul(s) we have and why do we have them.  What problem is created if the 9's requirement is added to the definitions?

Gents, I agree with all three here. NOFVA- does have some logic in his discussion, as do both HLinNC and CalhounLJ. This is exactly why I joined this forum a few years back (not as long as you guys) As HLinNC points out --it is a pain-- but I do agree it does make us better, even if a bit "painful" and considering the difference in the penalty difference here we owe it to the players. I can only strive to reach your level of expertise. Thanks again-- I look forward to more responses from each on other rules. 

[KWH]

x