Substitution Rule, AR, and mechanics

[ElvisLives]

3-5-2-e and AR 3-5-2V still don’t align. For 2024 (and before), the RULE said to not allow Team A to snap the ball, and one team or the other would be charged with a DOG if the play clock expired. The RULE made no mention of what to do if Team A managed to snap the ball before Team B had completed its substitutions. However, the AR directed us to attempt to prevent Team A from snapping the ball, but, if they did, to stop the action, and allow Team B to complete their substitutions. This was “No Foul,” but Team A would be warned that the next such incident would be a UNS foul. (I actually had to enforce this just this way in a game at Texas Tech back in 2011.)

For 2025, the RULE reads exactly the same. DOG (for one team or the other) if the play clock expires, but no mention of what to do if Team A manages to snap the ball. The requirement to notify the team that the next incident would be a UNS foul is still there. However, the AR has been edited to delete the notification to Team A that the next incident would result in a UNS foul. That certainly makes it sound like all such actions are DOGs, but that does not align with the rule.

Sadly, this is typical for the current rule bureaucracy. They just don’t vet the rules and AR’s thoroughly against themselves, and against other rules. If 2-1-a can be believed, the rule should govern, which makes the AR incorrect.

If anybody has some authoritative information on why the AR was edited, please share. (This smacks of an Israel/Iran thing - they don't know what the ...  )

[blindtxzebra]

Great question

[FWREF]

Maybe i am missing something but this seems set to me. The AR says to penalize team A for a delay of game and 5 yards. There is no mention of a UNS. So every infraction is a DOG with no escalation to a UNS. This seems to make it consistent and easier to enforce. Team A doesn't get a freebie and there is no need to worry about a 15 yard penalty because the center or QB didn't see the U coming in to hold the snap. The penalty and enforcement are the same every time. What am i missing? 

[ElvisLives]

Maybe i am missing something but this seems set to me. The AR says to penalize team A for a delay of game and 5 yards. There is no mention of a UNS. So every infraction is a DOG with no escalation to a UNS. This seems to make it consistent and easier to enforce. Team A doesn't get a freebie and there is no need to worry about a 15 yard penalty because the center or QB didn't see the U coming in to hold the snap. The penalty and enforcement are the same every time. What am i missing?

You’re missing the fact that the RULE - not the AR - did not change at all, and still specifies the requirement for the play clock to expire, and, if Team A is the cause for the delay, then they get a DOG penalty, and the head coach of the offending team still gets a warning that the next incident will result in a UNS foul. The AR is in conflict with the RULE, and 2-1-a tells us that the RULE takes priority over the AR, if they are in conflict.

What started this is that I was CC’d on an unofficial study document that used the expression “the snap is imminent” with regard to when to call the DOG foul. Neither the RULE nor the AR make any reference to the snap being imminent, and in fact, for a foul, they both still require the ball to be snapped before the covering official can get in place to prevent the snap.

If the intent is to charge Team A with a DOG in every incidence, the rules bureaucracy simply has failed, yet again, to coordinate the RULE and the AR thoroughly. Even the previous AR did not match the RULE. The previous AR required a snap to occur, then, on the first incident, action is stopped, NO FOUL was to be called (which did not match the RULE); the ball was re-spotted, and the offending team was warned that the next incident would be a UNS, and the down continued.

If the rules committee wants a DOG on every incident, the RULE needs to be changed. If they want the play clock to be interrupted when the snap is imminent, the RULE and the AR, both, need to be changed.

[ilyazhito]

I agree. Bad rule editing is confusing for everyone involved, but especially for the officials.

[ElvisLives]

OK, I have heard from some of my FBS contacts (following their recent conference clinics), and I am being told that (per 3-5-2-e and AR 3-5-2-V) when Team A substitutes and tries to snap before Team B can “match up,” and the snapper actually moves the ball to snap it, as in the past, we stop the action, and now we charge Team A with a dead-ball DOG foul. Then we warn the offensive HC that any further use of this tactic will be a UNS. So, bottom line, first instance (only) = DOG and warning. All instances thereafter = UNS.
So, essentially, the only thing that changed is that Team A gets hit with a DOG on the first instance (whereas it was "no foul" previously).

There are actually three possible scenarios related to this tactic:
1) Team A actually tries to snap the ball (DOG or UNS, as described above).
2) Officials prevent the snap and the play clock expires while Team B is legitimately attempting to complete their ‘match-up’ substitutions (Team A DOG or UNS, as described above).
3) Officials prevent the snap and the play clock expires while Team B is taking excessive time to complete their ‘match-up’ substitutions (Team B DOD).

Admittedly, these scenarios are unusual, but, this is an editorial change that we need to understand, should one of these scenarios happen.

I don't know why they removed the reference to the HC warning in the AR. If they had left that in, I don't believe there would have been any confusion.

Go forth and prosper, young grasshopper.  (Bonus points to those that can identify the two TV shows referenced. )