Is this legal in NFHS???

[HLinNC]

which has no specific rule coverage.

Well there is this.

But then you know that already.

[Ralph Damren]

The Case Book is considered an extension of the Rules Book. GENERAL INFORMATION (under Forward) : "The interpretations and rulings for all situations have been approved by the NFHS Football Rules Committee and are official."While I agree that 9-6-4d could be applied to the OP, I would be tempted to apply the more severe 9.9.1B. IMHO, the coach when asked for unusual or trick plays, should have presented this , if not that would be considered unsportsmanlike by me. The 'replaced' player, leaving the field while holding his hand/arm/whatever caused B not to worry about coverage as his 'substitute' is entering. Shutting the play down before it can illegally result in a touchdown will prevent the  of a play we will need to take away.

Maybe I've just turned into a grumpy ole' guy 

[AlUpstateNY]

Which UNS rule are you speaking of?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sorry, NFHS, either players or non-players.  I'm traveling & don't have my NFHS Rule/Case/Official's Manual books with me.

[HLinNC]

Shutting the play down before it can illegally result in a touchdown

I get that, Ralph, and it make sense.  However, as I mentioned earlier this is theory.  In real live action, I'm willing to wager that a huge majority of officials are going to hesitate to figure out just WTH is going on.   If that play gets off and a score is made, the WH is really going to have stretch 9-9-1 to include wiping out the score.  IP is the safer option and the enforcement doesn't require the referee to turn into Stretch Armstrong.

[refjeff]

A8 pretended to be a replaced player leaving the field.  Clearly a violation of 9.6.4d, Illegal Participation, 15 yards, previous spot.

But, the faked injury adds another dimension.  It was "designed to confuse the defense into believing there (was) a problem" and that A8 was out of the game.  UNS is reasonable, CB 9.9.1 Situation B.  Even if the flag is not dropped until after the play and the officials talk about what happened, the foul occurred before the snap and the correct enforcement spot is the previous spot.     

(We don't have to throw a flag or blow a whistle to get the call right.  We can talk about it and reconstruct the play to get it correct, and that can include a pre-snap foul.  It might appear awkward, but getting it right is all that really matters.)

I am not saying you are wrong if you don't want to penalize for UNS.  I am saying either is correct.

The only officials who are truly wrong were those on the field who were told about the play by the coach pregame and didn't know either rule!

[CalhounLJ]

A8 pretended to be a replaced player leaving the field.  Clearly a violation of 9.6.4d, Illegal Participation, 15 yards, previous spot.

But, the faked injury adds another dimension.  It was "designed to confuse the defense into believing there (was) a problem" and that A8 was out of the game.  UNS is reasonable, CB 9.9.1 Situation B.  Even if the flag is not dropped until after the play and the officials talk about what happened, the foul occurred before the snap and the correct enforcement spot is the previous spot.     

(We don't have to throw a flag or blow a whistle to get the call right.  We can talk about it and reconstruct the play to get it correct, and that can include a pre-snap foul.  It might appear awkward, but getting it right is all that really matters.)

I am not saying you are wrong if you don't want to penalize for UNS.  I am saying either is correct.

The only officials who are truly wrong were those on the field who were told about the play by the coach pregame and didn't know either rule!

So are you saying that the ONLY factor that elevates this to USC is alleged fake injury?

Also, I still contend 9-9-1 is not applicable in this case because it stipulates that it’s reserved for cases with no rules coverage. This play has rules coverage. A used a pretended substitution to deceive the defense in violation of 9-6-4d. The deception was not that there was a problem and therefore the snap was not imminent. The deception was that a player who had been subbed out was leaving the field. He didn’t.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[HLinNC]

The only officials who are truly wrong were those on the field who were told about the play by the coach pregame and didn't know either rule!

My experience has been the play the coach tells you about rarely works out like he claims, which is usually what makes it illegal.  One of the main reason I never ask.  I'd rather depend on my experience and rules knowledge than the coach's fantasy explanation of how he envisions it.

[refjeff]

So are you saying that the ONLY factor that elevates this to USC is alleged fake injury?

  IMO, faking the injury elevates it to UNS.  If A8 just jogs toward the sideline there is a good chance someone on defense has eyes on him.  Faking the injury sends a message, I am hurt.  You don't have to worry about me.   I couldn't possible run a route and catch a pass.  I can hardly get off the field.   

Also, I still contend 9-9-1 is not applicable in this case because it stipulates that it’s reserved for cases with no rules coverage. This play has rules coverage.

I looked all over the rule book for "faking an injury to gain an advantage" and couldn't find anything. Seems to me it falls into the same category as other things I have seen on video like faking a heart attack or being shot and falling down, a series of somersaults toward the sideline, getting down on all fours and barking.  Seems like they are all pre-snap UNS.  Language in the case book justifies the call.

[NVFOA_Ump]

IMHO I've got to go with the UNS here.  There are 3 clear and distinct components to this play as shown in the video.

1.  The "hideout" that would trigger a "simple' IP call
2.  The clear "faking an injury" to gain an advantage that as noted has no specific rules coverage other than it's coupled with a substitution violation
3.  And the most unsportsmanlike of all, the coaching staff, directly in front of (or behind) a wing official, actively participating in this charade.

IMHO calling a "simple" IP here does a MAJOR disservice to the entire sportsmanship focus of NFHS rules.  As shown here in this video clip, this is a coached, practiced, and flagrant unsportsmanlike act. I'd go with a UNS on the coach based on the active participation in INTENTIONAL violation of the rules.

[CalhounLJ]

Legit question. Is there any way we could throw two flags here? One for IP, the other for unfair act, making a travesty of the game? I won’t rehash my objection to 9-9-1, but I sincerely believe it doesn’t apply. However, there is a good argument for 9-9-5. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[refjeff]

I don't believe that faking the injury rises to the level of "travesty."

And I am not arguing that you are incorrect.  Either IP or UNS is 15 from the previous spot, so the result is mostly the same.

[HLinNC]

 

Either IP or UNS is 15 from the previous spot, so the result is mostly the same.

Unsportsmanlike is succeeding spot, which is why I keep making the point that IP is the better option here.

[refjeff]

Unsportsmanlike is succeeding spot, which is why I keep making the point that IP is the better option here.

Yes, except the UNS foul occurred before the ball was snapped.  So the ball was dead and the play never happened.

[CalhounLJ]

Yes, except the UNS foul occurred before the ball was snapped.  So the ball was dead and the play never happened.

Except it didn’t. The fake injury wasn’t discovered until the player participated at the snap.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[NVFOA_Ump]

Except it didn’t. The fake injury wasn’t discovered until the player participated at the snap.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yes it did occur BEFORE the snap right in the lap of the wing official.  Again, IMHO this should have been a blow & throw the instant that the coaching staff made it 100% clear that they were participating in this charade.  That was BEFORE the snap.

[bama_stripes]

As shown here in this video clip, this is a coached, practiced, and flagrant unsportsmanlike act.  IMHO I've got to go with the UNS here. 

So are you also advocating ejection of the head coach?

[HLinNC]

IMHO this should have been a blow & throw the instant

But it wasn't and in all probability the vast majority of HS officials wouldn't have either.  (And I'm NOT including me as one that would have necessarily caught it in time either.)

[NVFOA_Ump]

But it wasn't and in all probability the vast majority of HS officials wouldn't have either.  (And I'm NOT including me as one that would have necessarily caught it in time either.)

I believe that you are doing all of us a significant disservice by saying that.  IMHO most of us would have caught this as it is clearly pre-planned and coached made obvious by the verbal component.  And again, IMHO I’m 100% OK with a flag immediately when it’s realized what’s going on here.  IMHO there is no legal play here given this very specific set of circumstances.

[AlUpstateNY]

So are you also advocating ejection of the head coach?

Just for clarification, under NFHS the calling official decides (subject to agreement by his referee) whether the infraction was UNS or FLAGRANT UNS (which would produce instant disqualification.  If this was the 2nd UNS against that coach, disqualification is automatic. I suspect that sequence is intended to recognize the potential of emotion, but emphasize such continued behavior is totally unacceptable. 

I presume the "leeway" afforded (UNS or FLAGRANT UNS) is provided to allow the covering official's judgment, of what is being observed in the particular and unique circumstance at hand, to assess the resulting decision, which especially in UNS-Coach situations, is routinely discussed, and assessed, with the Referee.

In either conclusion, a detailed explanation of the event and decision process should be included in the game report, for possible application of additional (post game) consequences, by higher authorities.  The "Hammer" of additional consequences caused by either the declaration of "Flagrant" or Post game assessment consequences, is partially designed as a deterrent to prevent a repetition, or escalation, of inappropriate behavior.

[HLinNC]

 

IMHO most of us would have caught this as it is clearly pre-planned and coached made obvious by the verbal component.

This was a Virginia state semi-final so one can surmise that the officials assigned were better than average.  They didn't catch it prior to the snap, hence my assertion that the vast majority would not either.

I understand the position that it is unsportsmanlike and agree that the behavior of faking an injury and the coach saying "stay here" falls into that category but components of IP exist also given the sub player coming off the sideline, thus using the sub process to deceive. 

Given that the officials actually working the game didn't catch it, had they conferred afterward and we don't know if they did, an IP ruling would allow the opportunity to mark off 15 from the previous spot and wipe out the score.

We are dealing with conjecture vs. reality.  Yes, blowing it dead and assessing USC would be ideal, but that isn't what happened.

[NVFOA_Ump]

This was a Virginia state semi-final so one can surmise that the officials assigned were better than average.  They didn't catch it prior to the snap, hence my assertion that the vast majority would not either.

So this TD was allowed to stand?     Or did they call IP after the play ended and replay the down?

[HLinNC]

According to the WAVY-TV station video and article, the score stood.  It put white up 21-7.  They won 35-7.

I have merged the sideline video from the OP with two media clips I located online.

https://youtu.be/rg5mtUwKfv0

[KWH]

I don't believe that faking the injury rises to the level of "travesty."

The rules do not attempt to list all possible forms of unsportsmanlike conduct for which the act might be penalized,
Instead all unsportsmanlike conduct acts are prohibited. Game official are instructed to penalize these types of unsportsmanlike conduct consistently and without hesitating. (From the NFHS Handbook)
Faking an injury to deceive your opponent into believing the snap is not imminent,
is unsporting and indeed (arguably) rises to the level of making a travesty of the game!
For supporting wording from the NFHS, look no further than the "COMMENT" found in CASEBOOK Play 9.9.1 SITUATION B

Respectfully submitted,
- Some guy on a message forum!

[CalhounLJ]

Yes it did occur BEFORE the snap right in the lap of the wing official.  Again, IMHO this should have been a blow & throw the instant that the coaching staff made it 100% clear that they were participating in this charade.  That was BEFORE the snap.

We are watching two different clips then.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CalhounLJ]

The rules do not attempt to list all possible forms of unsportsmanlike conduct for which the act might be penalized,
Instead all unsportsmanlike conduct acts are prohibited. Game official are instructed to penalize these types of unsportsmanlike conduct consistently and without hesitating. (From the NFHS Handbook)
Faking an injury to deceive your opponent into believing the snap is not imminent,
is unsporting and indeed (arguably) rises to the level of making a travesty of the game!
For supporting wording from the NFHS, look no further than the "COMMENT" found in CASEBOOK Play 9.9.1 SITUATION B

Respectfully submitted,
- Some guy on a message forum!

Faking the injury didn’t do anything to make the defense believe the snap was not forthcoming. If anything, faking the injury gave A a “valid” reason to substitute. B was not caught off guard by the snap. They were caught off guard by a player they assumed had subbed off.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk