Trick Play - Snap Not Imminent (video)

[TXMike]

I thought we had received guidance that trick plays like this were illegal?

http://youtu.be/kwmM1WCtiMg

[Atlanta Blue]

ACC.  You expected less?

Clemson pushes the envelope (and rips it open) on these type of plays.  Twice last year they got away with hiding receivers on the sideline. both times the league office issued statements that week that the plays were illegal.  One of those came in the Ga Tech game where BOTH teams got away with it.

[Joe Stack]

Unless he's using equipment or substitution issues (for lack of a better word), isn't this OK?

[TXMike]

"Actions or verbiage designed to confuse the defense into believing the snap is not imminent, are not legal. This includes pretending to have a problem with the play that has been called, an equipment problem with a shoe, the ball, etc. and feigning an injury. A good rule of thumb to follow is that if an act appears to be unfair, it is probably contrary to the rules."
 
That came from Redding I think but am looking for original source

[110]

Depends on what was said - if nothing, I'm comfortable with this play.

[Joe Stack]

I don't see direct rule or AR support for the Redding quote, under either rule 9 or 7 (false start).

[NVFOA_Ump]

I don't see direct rule or AR support for the Redding quote, under either rule 9 or 7 (false start).

This has been covered multiple times in the past (I also believe it was by Dr. Redding), and IMO it falls under the language used in AR 9-2-2-V where the player turns and indicates that there is some kind of problem on the field that needs to get resolved.  We've been told multiple times that this is only legal when there is no interaction with the sideline that is intended to indicate there is a problem and the snap is not going to happen.  IMO this one gets a flag. 

[Joe Stack]

9-2-2-V deals with substitution, not "some kind of problem on the field." Substitution is expressly covered in the rule, thus the AR makes sense.

This play has nothing to do with substitution. I'm not arguing its legal; I'm just saying Redding's comment doesn't make it illegal. It isn't an NCAA AR or otherwise adopted resource. In this case, there doesn't really seem to be a clear reference to a stated rule.

We can't extrapolate rules to cover situations that we may think are similar to what the rule says.

When the QB turns and says or does something toward the sideline, how is that different than a fake punt where the punter acts as if the snap goes over his head, and he turns and runs after an imaginary ball?

[NVFOA_Ump]

This play is apples and oranges when compared to the faked "over the head snap" as that is a live ball action that takes place on the field of play.  We've been instructed multiple times that any dead ball interaction or simulated interaction with the sideline that is intended make Team B believe that the snap is not imminent is a foul.

[Sonofanump]

If he keeps his hands at his side and does not indicate anything presnap beyond turning and facing his sideline, do we still have a foul?  I think it becomes a problem when he indicated action with his hands towards his sidelines.

[Atlanta Blue]

If the QB had walked out and was yelling to a slot receiver or TE and not to the sideline, and the same snap happens, would it be legal then?

Is what makes it illegal the QB talking to the sideline instead of to a wideout?

[NVFOA_Ump]

If he turns and simply walks away then he hasn't interacted with the sideline so IMO that's legal.  Once he adds the play acting role with the head shake, the arm movements, and what looks like verbal stuff, he's crossed the line.  It's the interaction with the sideline, either real or simulated, that's the problem here.

[NVFOA_Ump]

If the QB had walked out and was yelling to a slot receiver or TE and not to the sideline, and the same snap happens, would it be legal then?

Is what makes it illegal the QB talking to the sideline instead of to a wideout?

He's always free to talk all he wants to any of the 11 legal players on the field, unless he loudly announces to the WR #81 as he's walking over to him that he has to leave the field.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Here's one of Dr. Reddings guidances from NCAA FOOTBALL RULES 2009 PLAY SITUATIONS #3, dated November 13, 2009:

2. Second and 10 at the A-45. Quarterback A12 is in a “shotgun” formation. All players are
stopped for a full second when A12 turns (no false start) and begins to trot toward his
sideline in apparent confusion about what play is to be called or whether the coach wants to
request a timeout. He is moving parallel to his end line and is almost to his sideline when the
ball is snapped to A45 who is five yards behind the snapper. A45 then completes a forward
pass to A12 for a long gain.

RULING: Unsportsmanlike conduct for an unfair act to deceive the opponents. The referee
may impose any penalty he deems reasonable. In this case the penalty is for a live-ball foul,
15 yards at the previous spot and the down is repeated. Second and 25 at the A-30. (9-2-3-c)

There are several others but my electronic filing system leaves a lot to be desired.

[Joe Stack]

Reddings Guide is persuasive, but not absolute authority unless the NCAA rule committee authorizes its use. I've never owned a copy and I dare say, neither have most of the officials working games under NCAA rules. We have to go by the ARs.

We've been instructed multiple times that any dead ball interaction or simulated interaction with the sideline that is intended make Team B believe that the snap is not imminent is a foul.

You keep saying this, but who is "we" and by whom?

This play is apples and oranges when compared to the faked "over the head snap" as that is a live ball action that takes place on the field of play.

The ball becomes live when its snapped. The video shows the player doing this while the ball is being snapped. Teams also do "look back" (to the sideline) after appearing to be ready to snap the ball. How do you define "interaction?" Non-verbal is OK, but verbal is not? I'm sorry, but there is absolutely NO rules support for that.

[El Macman]

Reddings Guide is persuasive, but not absolute authority unless the NCAA rule committee authorizes its use. I've never owned a copy and I dare say, neither have most of the officials working games under NCAA rules. We have to go by the ARs.

You keep saying this, but who is "we" and by whom?

The ball becomes live when its snapped. The video shows the player doing this while the ball is being snapped. Teams also do "look back" (to the sideline) after appearing to be ready to snap the ball. How do you define "interaction?" Non-verbal is OK, but verbal is not? I'm sorry, but there is absolutely NO rules support for that.

Joe, I've always said the same thing about the study guide, but this ain't from the study guide. They are official interpretations by Redding as the Sec-Ed.

[Reverend30]

Reddings Guide is persuasive, but not absolute authority unless the NCAA rule committee authorizes its use. I've never owned a copy and I dare say, neither have most of the officials working games under NCAA rules. We have to go by the ARs.

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/rules/football/2009/2009playsituationsno%203-1109.pdf

This is the memo from which that play situation is taken.

[Kalle]

It would be nice to have an AR in the next book about this, with the words "snap not imminent" included in the ruling... then again, it didn't make the current book even though the actual RR ruling is from 2009, so I'm not holding my breath.

[Joe Stack]

Pardon my mistake. I was going off this comment:

That came from Redding

[TXMike]

That is where it is coming from, Redding.  He is the one who wrote the Bulletin

[fencewire]

So it is nowhere in the rulebook, but it is in a memo from 2009 and, you are expected to know the rule book and any rules "memos" from when... 2008?  2005?

I mean, if it is a new rule or a change to a rule, and since there has been a new rulebook released since the memo was penned doesn't it make a moderate amount of sense that it would have been included in the 2011 rulebook?

I understand the need for "memos" between the book releases... call them addendums... but shouldn't they be rolled into the next release?

[TxSkyBolt]

So it is nowhere in the rulebook, but it is in a memo from 2009 and, you are expected to know the rule book and any rules "memos" from when... 2008?  2005?

I mean, if it is a new rule or a change to a rule, and since there has been a new rulebook released since the memo was penned doesn't it make a moderate amount of sense that it would have been included in the 2011 rulebook?

I understand the need for "memos" between the book releases... call them addendums... but shouldn't they be rolled into the next release?

Or at least added to ARs.

[Kalle]

So it is nowhere in the rulebook, but it is in a memo from 2009 and, you are expected to know the rule book and any rules "memos" from when... 2008?  2005?

All the way back. The play situation bulletins have been around for at least ten years - obviously some play situations have been obsoleted by later rule changes, but that is still a lot of situations to consider, and it is very difficult for a non-NCAA official to get their hands on anything earlier than 2006 or so.

[El Macman]

So it is nowhere in the rulebook, but it is in a memo from 2009 and, you are expected to know the rule book and any rules "memos" from when... 2008?  2005?

I mean, if it is a new rule or a change to a rule, and since there has been a new rulebook released since the memo was penned doesn't it make a moderate amount of sense that it would have been included in the 2011 rulebook?

I understand the need for "memos" between the book releases... call them addendums... but shouldn't they be rolled into the next release?

Damned right. Some get placed into the rules as rule changes or ARs. Some get superseded by rule changes, or changes in interpretation by a new Sec-Ed. But some remain in effect.
No one said this was easy.

[mccormicw]

Damned right. Some get placed into the rules as rule changes or ARs. Some get superseded by rule changes, or changes in interpretation by a new Sec-Ed. But some remain in effect.
No one said this was easy.

Amen.