Trick Play in Texas HS Championship

[Gladiator]

Is this formation legal (notice the wideout at the top of the screen)?   Is this play legal  (snap not imminent issue)?

[yt=425,350]iK-4N1r9E94[/yt]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iK-4N1r9E94

[Birddog]

As in the WR at the top, on the line with shoulders not approx parallel to the LOS?

Looks like the same for bottom receiver, but hard to tell. They are facing sideline to help sell the "trick". 

[mishatx]

If nothing else, I'm pretty sure I've got illegal shift.  The QB, the back to his right, and the slot guy at the top of the picture do not seem to stop milling around long enough to be set before the snap.

[Atlanta Blue]

I don't see a problem with the formation, but I also see Illegal Shift.  All 3 backs other than the QB are moving and not simultaneously set for one second.

Again, if you are going to run a trick play, you had better be perfect in your mechanics.

[george7244]

looks to me that the backs are not set and that the right wideout is moving at the snap. also the wideouts are neither one facing downfield.  this to me falls under the same category as the wrong tee and other plays too deceptive to be legal.  just my humble opinion.  other than that a really good football game and really well officiated.  congrats to both teams, their coaches and fans and the zebras.

[Curious]

HS Game.  Birddog has it right: "A lineman is any A player who is facing his opponent's goal line with his shoulders approximately parallel thereto....when the ball is snapped" - Rule 2-32-9.  The left wide out on the end of the line does not meet this requirement; so I see only 6 on the LOS.

Backs are moving too; questionable whether all 11 were set for a second....

I HATE this kind of #*%@!!!!!!!!

[Kalle]

HS Game.  Birddog has it right: "A lineman is any A player who is facing his opponent's goal line with his shoulders approximately parallel thereto....when the ball is snapped" - Rule 2-32-9. 

It's a Texas HS game so it's NCAA rules, but they are pretty much identical in language in this case. The correct NCAA reference would be rule 2-27-4-a-2.

[NoVaBJ]

Neither end is a lineman, because their shoulders are not even approaching approximately parallel to B's goal line.  Illegal formation, simultaneous with the snap, five yards.

I fail to see the case for illegal motion or illegal shift.  At a minimum, all pairs of feet are set for a second.

This assumes there is no verbal conduct to make B believe the snap is not imminent.  But if there is--and it looks like B's right tailback might have had that in mind--the foul is unsportsmanlike conduct, no play, fifteen yards.

I hope the latter didn't happen, because if it did, it marks the second time in two months that a crew from Texas has let this go, resulting in a crap play that gains national prominence and causes the rest of us problems when we shut similar garbage down like we're supposed to.

[TXMike]

Not surprisingly, "it" has a name...Gator

http://galvestondailynews.com/blog/4758

[DallasLJ]

Help me here.  There no longer have the requirement to have 7 linemen - -just cannot have more than 4 backs.  So, the fact the top receiver is not squared up may not make him a "legal" lineman, but is certainly isn't a back.  So, I am not sure there is a formation problem.

  What am I missing?

[Joe Stack]

I fail to see the case for illegal motion or illegal shift.  At a minimum, all pairs of feet are set for a second.

Agreed. Feet are set and upper body is not simulating the start of a play. Nothing there.

[Osric Pureheart]

Help me here.  There no longer have the requirement to have 7 linemen - -just cannot have more than 4 backs.  So, the fact the top receiver is not squared up may not make him a "legal" lineman, but is certainly isn't a back.  So, I am not sure there is a formation problem.

  What am I missing?

Well, if you don't think he's a legal lineman then by rule he isn't "on his scrimmage line" (2-27-4), and if he certainly isn't a back either, he's gotta be a mugwump...

[Welpe]

Well, if you don't think he's a legal lineman then by rule he isn't "on his scrimmage line" (2-27-4), and if he certainly isn't a back either, he's gotta be a mugwump...

Agreed, he's a mugwump, or in other parlance, "in no man's land".

[TXMike]

Help me here.  There no longer have the requirement to have 7 linemen - -just cannot have more than 4 backs.  So, the fact the top receiver is not squared up may not make him a "legal" lineman, but is certainly isn't a back.  So, I am not sure there is a formation problem.

  What am I missing?

You will never find me defending the "clarity" of the rulebook.  It is somewhat convoluted but here is the "logic":
 
7-1-3-b-1 says all players must be  " on their scrimmage line or legally positioned as a back at the snap."
 
Then you have to go to 2-27-4-a-1 and 2-27-4-a-2 where it talks about linemen and says they are "on the line" when they are parallel (or approx parallel) to the line of scrimmage.   If they are not parallel, they are not "on the line". And if they are not "on the line" then you go back to 7-1-3-b-1 and it is a foul.

[110]

Now, as a Canadian guy, I'm used to all sorts of motion and stuff at the start of a play, and our ends can be in motion on the LOS, so my "instincts" are primed way different. With that very huge grain o' salt on the table, my Devil's advocate says ... it's a good play.

I would hope the coaches had addressed this play in pregame.

[Morningrise]

Trick plays demand the highest level of scrutiny, to be sure, but if a team ran this play AND all players were set AND all players were linemen or backs AND no simulated or actual substitutions were involved, then I would have a legal play.

It can't ALWAYS be illegal to trick the defense into believing the snap isn't imminent, or else we'd have a flag every time the snap comes on "Down" instead of "Hut."

[TXMike]

Now we are going to get into parsing just what is permitted or not permitted.  If they are just looking to the sideline, no verbiage from sideline - in or team - out, I'd say that is legal.  But what if the team uses signs and/or hand signals to signal plays in?  If they are signalling like that and team is looking at them, and the ball is snapped, is it legal?

I doubt this specific play would work outside of HS.  College and pro players know that once the ball is placed on the ground, it can be snapped at any time. It is impiossible to tell from the video but I wonder if the trick play incorporates the R's RFP whistle.  I.e. Ball will be snapped at the moment the RFP is blown.

[Diablo]

Help me here.  There no longer have the requirement to have 7 linemen - -just cannot have more than 4 backs.  So, the fact the top receiver is not squared up may not make him a "legal" lineman, but is certainly isn't a back.  So, I am not sure there is a formation problem.

  What am I missing?

When confronted with a player lined up in a questionable manner, the covering wing has to do some fast computing.

First, the wing has to decide in his mind if the questionable player is a lineman, back, or mugwump.
If the wing labels the questionable player as a "lineman", does he coverup an eligible-numbered Team A player?
If the wing says "back", are there more than 3 other backs in Team A's formation?
If the wing picks door #3 ("mugwump"), there's going to be an illegal formation foul at the snap.

BTW, the QB in position to take a hand-to-hand snap is an exception to the illegal formation foul for a mugwump.

[Getting Fat]

I was fortunate to be standing on Team A's sideline for this play (about 15 yards upfield from where the ball was snapped), my eyes about popped out of my head when they ran it for a TD, I was sure something was amiss...

There was NO verbal communication from the sideline.  The ball was snapped at the exact moment the RFP whistle was blown.  I'm still looking for something to call, does anybody want to see this as part of the game?

[TXMike]

As I suspected, they incorporated the RFP whistle.

Did this team use hand and/or cards to signal in plays?

I think we have found one way to deal with this specific play (illegal formation).  That is an easy fix though by having the 2 WR's face downfield instead of to the sideline. 

I'd like to see us be able to use the same "rationale" we use on false starts by RB's.  If WE thought the snap was happening, then it is a false start.  If WE think the snap is not "imminent", then we can use the UnsConduct provisions.  Not sure that has rule support however. 

Here is another example of the rule loosening causing problems.  I suspect many of us recall the day when it was illegal for there to be communicatioin between the team area (coaches) and the players on the field.  The rules were looened to permit it and now here we are, years later, with a team taking advantage by lulling the opponent into believing that communication was continuing.

(And a PS for those who want to argue illegal shift on the video play....now that we know the ball was snapped on the RFP, I believe the potential for an illegal shift foul has gone away)

[JasonTX]

I think this all goes back to preventive officiating.  Someone hit on it earlier and the coach even mentioned it in the article where he told where he got this play from to let the officials know.  As part of my pregame I always ask the coaches if they have any "trick" plays.  I then explain to him the rules that may be at risk of being broken on the play, primarily formation requirements as well as any possible substitution trickery. 

Not anything like this play, but I had one coach in pregame this year inform me of a play where they would send in 10 players.  When the huddle would break they would run 1 guy off toward the sideline but stop short, they'd then send in the 11th player to inside the numbers.  His intent (and he admitted so) was to trick the defense into thinking they were subbing a player.  He thought everything was good because the 11th player came inside the numbers.  I informed him that this play would be illegal for using the sub process to deceive.  He took my advice and did not run the play. 

[Mark uk]

It can't ALWAYS be illegal to trick the defence into believing the snap isn't imminent, or else we'd have a flag every time the snap comes on "Down" instead of "Hut."

I do find it interesting that whenever a crew let a play like this go the default opinion seems to be that they made a mistake and we should find a way of stopping the play. Presumably the crew didn't think they had a reason quickly enough to throw the flag at the time. Can any of us clearly say we would have thrown the flag and known why we were throwing if we'd been there. I can't believe it would look good if a crew threw a flag then went into a 10 minute huddle while they worked out how they could justify it.

[AlUpstateNY]

Wouldn't it be great if there was a magical e-mail address where you could reach every coach, at every level of Football and inform them that effective immediately, all ridiculous, nit picking, BS plays must stop and the penalty for designing one will be automatic DQ for a minimum of 3 games.

[TXMike]

I do find it interesting that whenever a crew let a play like this go the default opinion seems to be that they made a mistake and we should find a way of stopping the play. Presumably the crew didn't think they had a reason quickly enough to throw the flag at the time. Can any of us clearly say we would have thrown the flag and known why we were throwing if we'd been there. I can't believe it would look good if a crew threw a flag then went into a 10 minute huddle while they worked out how they could justify it.

The crew may have been caught by surprise.  How often does a team snap on the RFP whistle when there is not time crunch involved?  But the flanks know what it takes to have a legal formation.  If the ball is snapped before they have a chance to determine the legality of the formation there is not much they can do. 

[JasonTX]

The crew may have been caught by surprise.  How often does a team snap on the RFP whistle when there is not time crunch involved?  But the flanks know what it takes to have a legal formation.  If the ball is snapped before they have a chance to determine the legality of the formation there is not much they can do. 

That's a good point.  There was once a saying regarding the responsibilities of wings.  "We have 100 things we have to go through and those are all before the snap."  If they didn't get to the point of looking at the formation, there really isn't much they can do except cross their fingers and hope everything was legal.  I think we have all had plays where we scratched our head thinking, "what the heck just happened."  At least the left cornerback on defense appeared to be alert enough to provide coverage.  Too bad he didn't intercept it cause that may have removed the play from that coaches playbook.