Trick Play in Texas HS Championship

[Osric Pureheart]

Hypothetical time.

You inform a coach that his fancy trick play where they snap the ball while the offense is looking at the sideline from completely legal positions and stances, with the QB exchanging silent hand signals with a coach, is illegal because they're using communication to decieve the defense into thinking the snap isn't imminent.  What would you say if he says "but sir, I use the hand signals to call the snap count in to my offense when they're at the line, and sometimes I use them to call in "snap the ball right now"?

[LarryW60]

I couldn't see the entire team (you only see the near-side wideout's helmet for a bit then he walks off-camera) but depending on how long he takes his stroll, you could have an illegal shift.

[TXMike]

No illegal shift possible as ball was snapped on the RFP whistle

[Diablo]

No illegal shift possible as ball was snapped on the RFP whistle

If he was stolling along his line of scrimmage while the ball was snap at the RFP, isn't that illegal motion?

[TXMike]

Absolutely. But there is no shift until ball has been made RFP.   If ball is snapped at that momemt there be an illegal motion foul but no illeg shift

[bama_stripes]

If the ball is snapped before they have a chance to determine the legality of the formation there is not much they can do. 

Right.  And ultimately, the responsibility for being alert and playing defense belongs to.........the defense.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Right.  And ultimately, the responsibility for being alert and playing defense belongs to.........the defense.

And likewise for our contribution, the responsibility for being alert and officiating belongs to.........the officials.  When a team is standing over the ball, with the center close enough to snap the ball simultaneous with the RFP we better be ready and have all of our pre-snap checklist done, and know exactly where everyone is.

[TL551]

"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."

Isn't it our responsibility to try to get the call right, even if it might not "look good?"  Plays like these should get the most scrutiny, I would like to see them talk about it and make sure everything is on the up and up.  I would not think less of this crew if they talked about it.

It's allways easy to armchair referee these games.  I don't like the excuse i didn't get through my presnap because they snapped on the ready.  Alot of teams try to do that now so you have to be ready for anything. 

In the end, the R and the two wings taking a couple of seconds after the play to just check and make sure everything was legal could have made one of those "crew saving" calls.

[Mark uk]

"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."

Isn't it our responsibility to try to get the call right, even if it might not "look good?" 

I'm not against a discussion to get something right, particularly if two officials have differing views on the same action, but I'm always told "If you think you've got a foul don't throw the flag" so what I wouldn't want to see is a flag thrown on the principle "That was an unusual play so there must be something wrong" followed by the discussion while the crew tried to work out what they could call.

It's all ways easy to armchair referee these games.

I'd agree and I suspect that's why these plays do not get flagged at the time, in real time no crew member could throw the cloth, walk over the WH and give him chapter and verse, so they didn't. 

[SWilliams]

At no time do I count 7 "legally on the line" of scrimmage.
The left wide out has shoulders parallel to the sideline, as does the right wide out.  Even if the right wide out squares up before the snap, that gives me 6 "legally on the line".  The 5 interior linemen are facing their opponents goal line.

In my opinion, at a minimum an illegal formation penalty should have been thrown, and penalty walked off 5 yards.

NCAA rules definition of being "legally on the line" of scrimmage...
2-27-4(2) An eligible pass receiver of Team A is “on his scrimmage line’’ at the snap when he faces his opponent’s goal line with the line of his shoulders approximately parallel thereto and his head breaking the plane of the line drawn through the waistline of the snapper.

[JasonTX]

At no time do I count 7 "legally on the line" of scrimmage.
The left wide out has shoulders parallel to the sideline, as does the right wide out.  Even if the right wide out squares up before the snap, that gives me 6 "legally on the line".  The 5 interior linemen are facing their opponents goal line.

In my opinion, at a minimum an illegal formation penalty should have been thrown, and penalty walked off 5 yards.

NCAA rules definition of being "legally on the line" of scrimmage...
2-27-4(2) An eligible pass receiver of Team A is “on his scrimmage line’’ at the snap when he faces his opponent’s goal line with the line of his shoulders approximately parallel thereto and his head breaking the plane of the line drawn through the waistline of the snapper.

The math probably comes out the same, but remember that in NCAA we no longer have to have 7 on the line.  Just as long as there are no more that 4 in the backfield.  Again, not having 7 in this play would mean we have more than 4.  I'm also curious about the left guard and left tackle.  They are standing straight up.  I don't know if their head is breaking the waistline of the snapper.  Could be that there are only 3 or 4 on the line.

[SWilliams]

The math probably comes out the same, but remember that in NCAA we no longer have to have 7 on the line.  Just as long as there are no more that 4 in the backfield.  Again, not having 7 in this play would mean we have more than 4.  I'm also curious about the left guard and left tackle.  They are standing straight up.  I don't know if their head is breaking the waistline of the snapper.  Could be that there are only 3 or 4 on the line.

Jason, I appreciate the feedback.  So in NFHS, we focus on having 7 on the line of scrimmage to have a legal formation, and are you saying that NCAA focuses on not having more than 4 in the backfield?  If that is the case, it seems like a philosophical difference between the two organization, as I thought the intent was to no fewer than 7 on the LOS no matter the level of play. 

In other words, if I have 7 on LOS, and 4 in the backfield  we both (NFHS and NCAA) have a legal formation.
If I have 6 on the LOS and 4 in the backfield, in NFHS, I have an illegal formation, but using the NCAA logic you would have a legal formation?

My white hat and I once got into a discussion because he was trained to count the backfield.  When I threw a flag for an illegal formation (NFHS) he said no, because he had 4 in the backfield, to which I responded, great but I have 6 on the LOS.  The team's 11th man was on the sidelines with his buddies watching the game instead of being in the game.

That could be a difference between the two organizations, and since this game was governed by NCAA rules, it may have been a legal formation.  I know if that play happens in any of the NFHS states, a flag drops.

[TxSkyBolt]

If I have 6 on the LOS and 4 in the backfield, in NFHS, I have an illegal formation, but using the NCAA logic you would have a legal formation?

Yes.  The NCAA decided it was silly to penalize a team with fewer than 11 on the field since they are already at a disadvantage.

[Welpe]

That could be a difference between the two organizations, and since this game was governed by NCAA rules, it may have been a legal formation.  I know if that play happens in any of the NFHS states, a flag drops.

It should still be an illegal formation under NCAA rules as at least the top receiver is not on the LOS but he is also not a back, which puts him in "no man's land".

[Diablo]

The math probably comes out the same, but remember that in NCAA we no longer have to have 7 on the line.  Just as long as there are no more that 4 in the backfield.  Again, not having 7 in this play would mean we have more than 4. 

To reiterate, NCAA rules no longer require 7 on the line provided there are only 4 backs and a total of 10 or less Team A players.  However, if there are less than 7 Team A legal lineman, 4 legal backs, and a total of 11 players, Team A has the makings of a foul at the snap.

[110]

It should still be an illegal formation under NCAA rules as at least the top receiver is not on the LOS but he is also not a back, which puts him in "no man's land".

Wouldn't both ends with six on the line also have to be an eligible number?

[Welpe]

Wouldn't both ends with six on the line also have to be an eligible number?

No, that isn't a requirement for NCAA rules.

[Atlanta Blue]

Wouldn't both ends with six on the line also have to be an eligible number?

In the US, only the NFL requires an eligible number on the end of the line.

Of course, an "end" with an ineligible number is not an eligible receiver.

As for the NFL rule, that is the reason you will hear the R announce, "#74 has reported as an eligible receiver."  99%+ of the time, that guy has no intention of catching a pass, or even going out for one.  But since the end has to have an eligible number, he must report as an eligible.  Most of the time, it's just  way of getting an extra blocker into the game.

[NVFOA_Ump]

To reiterate, NCAA rules no longer require 7 on the line provided there are only 4 backs and a total of 10 or less Team A players.  However, if there are less than 7 Team A legal lineman, 4 legal backs, and a total of 11 players, Team A has the makings of a foul at the snap.

I agree with Diablo here.  When A has 11 on the field as they do here, they are  required to have 7 players that qualify as legal lineman - they don't.  I also agree with multiple previous comments that when a team is trying to flex the rules and run a trick play then they better comply 100% with the applicable requirements.  Way too many problems here for this one to be legal IMO.

[TXMike]

One aspect of this I saw on another website that we have not even dealt with yet are the mouthpieces.     

[SWilliams]

Yes.  The NCAA decided it was silly to penalize a team with fewer than 11 on the field since they are already at a disadvantage.

Does the NCAA share that philosophy when that 10 man offense clips 80 yards away from a scoring touchdown?  I'm just saying... When you add that kind of "well they were already are at a disadvantage" judgment as to what gets called you could get in a tough spot real quick.  Just my personal opinion.

One aspect of this I saw on another website that we have not even dealt with yet are the mouthpieces.     

TxMike, good call ref.  However, if that was the first time that happened (mouthpieces usually fall under preventative officiating) and you negate the touchdown on that penalty, you become just as instantly famous from the other side of the aisle that claims "referee taking the game out of the hands of the kids!  Let them play, etc..." as you would have by a no-call.


To all,
So have we decided that according to NCAA rules this was a legal play or not?

[Kalle]

Does the NCAA share that philosophy when that 10 man offense clips 80 yards away from a scoring touchdown?  I'm just saying... When you add that kind of "well they were already are at a disadvantage" judgment as to what gets called you could get in a tough spot real quick.  Just my personal opinion.
 we decided that according to NCAA rules this was a legal play or not?

The NCAA decided that the deciding factor in the "seven men on the line" rule was to limit the number of eligible receivers down to six. It makes little sense to penalize a team for following the spirit of that rule when they have less than 11 players.

[TXMike]

If the play goes off without us dealing with the mouthpieces then I got nothing. We shut ity down and deal with it or wait till next play

[Texas Ref 12]

Note that the top receiver (and most likely the bottom receiver as well) does not have his shoulders "approximately" parallel to the opponents goal line, and he is not facing the opponents goal line, both criteria being requirements of an eligible reciever that is positioned on the line of scrimmage (a lineman) (Rule 2-27-4-a2, FR-58). Thus, there should have been a foul called for illegal formation (5 yard penalty from prev spot). We've all missed fouls, especially under "unusual" types of circumstances, but it does reinforce the importance of staying forcused, and staying alert once the ball has been made ready and the snapper has touched (or simulated touching), the ball.

[110]

I think this highlights the importance of "coach, do you have any special plays you'd like us to be aware of," element of pre-game chatter.