Author Topic: Should Rule 7-2-1 be altered?  (Read 5118 times)

Offline bbeagle

  • *
  • Posts: 407
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-27
Should Rule 7-2-1 be altered?
« on: October 24, 2012, 11:47:08 AM »
Rule 7-2-1. After the ball is marked ready for play, each player of A who participated in the previous down and each substitute for A must have been, momentarily, between the 9-yard marks, before the snap.

I understand the reason for this rule - no sneaking players onto the field. But why does this apply to players already on the field, when we don't substitute at all?

I don't think we apply this rule consistently.

For example,
Play: Team A has no timeouts left, is in hurry up mode 1st and 10 at the 50 yard line (they just got a first down on the previous play). Clock is still stopped to reset the chains. Team A players are already at the line ready to snap the ball, but are awaiting the ready for play whistle. Players A80 and A82 are wide receivers lined up outside the numbers on either side of the field. Referee THEN blows the ready-for-play, and the ball is snapped immediately.

According to rule, this is ILLEGAL FORMATION (7-2-1). I know nobody who would call this. Shouldn't this be an exception to the rule?

« Last Edit: October 24, 2012, 11:49:06 AM by bbeagle »

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: Should Rule 7-2-1 be altered?
« Reply #1 on: October 24, 2012, 12:35:19 PM »
Let's take your same situation, with some slight changes:

Play: Team A has no timeouts left, is in hurry up mode 1st and 10 at the 50 yard line (they just got a first down on the previous play). Clock is still stopped to reset the chains. Team A players are already at the line ready to snap the ball, but are awaiting the ready for play whistle. Players A80 and A82 are wide receivers lined up outside the numbers on either side of the field. When the previous play ended, they wandered toward their sideline in the offenseive backfield, and then walked up the sideline to the new LOS and took their positions outside the numbers, where they are unnoticed by the defense.  Referee THEN blows the ready-for-play, and the ball is snapped immediately.

You had better have a flag on the ground now!

The number of times where the players "legally" rush to the line outside of the numbers and get set before the RFP are miniscule.  No need to change the rule for these few times.


Offline bbeagle

  • *
  • Posts: 407
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-27
Re: Should Rule 7-2-1 be altered?
« Reply #2 on: October 24, 2012, 12:45:43 PM »
The number of times where the players "legally" rush to the line outside of the numbers and get set before the RFP are miniscule.  No need to change the rule for these few times.

I'm bringing this up, because this happened in 3 different plays last week in the same game.

The opposing coach said (correctly according to the rule book) the players must waste time by running inside the numbers and then come back (thus taking time off the clock), or not start the play so wide.

As this was a hurry-up offense, and my feeling was this was not deception, I ignored the coach's requests during the game. This was brought up in our post-game as to whether this was legal or not.


Offline KingTut

  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-0
Re: Should Rule 7-2-1 be altered?
« Reply #3 on: October 24, 2012, 12:58:21 PM »
I called it before in a game but the white hat waived the flag for the reason that the WR was on the other team side so in a way it wasn't deception and he wasn't talking to his coach/sideline.
Though I wasn't convinced it's the right interpretation of the rule, I showed him the rule book and I was told again, it may be applied if the player lining near his sideline.

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2216
  • FAN REACTION: +63/-12
Re: Should Rule 7-2-1 be altered?
« Reply #4 on: October 24, 2012, 01:06:38 PM »
Quote
exception

Fed hates exceptions, except when they make them.


Offline maven

  • *
  • Posts: 620
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-0
Re: Should Rule 7-2-1 be altered?
« Reply #5 on: October 24, 2012, 01:13:24 PM »
My wings shoo the receivers inside the numbers when DB fouls like FS and ENC are being enforced.
Quality is not an act, it is a habit.
Aristotle

Offline TampaSteve

  • *
  • Posts: 1274
  • FAN REACTION: +14/-10
Re: Should Rule 7-2-1 be altered?
« Reply #6 on: October 24, 2012, 01:18:47 PM »
I'm bringing this up, because this happened in 3 different plays last week in the same game.

The opposing coach said (correctly according to the rule book) the players must waste time by running inside the numbers and then come back (thus taking time off the clock), or not start the play so wide.

As this was a hurry-up offense, and my feeling was this was not deception, I ignored the coach's requests during the game. This was brought up in our post-game as to whether this was legal or not.
I really dont see the "wasted time" in moving, at most, 9 yards from the sideline.
Goodness, watch a NCAA kickoff.  They have the same rule.  That is, before the whistle, they are inside the numbers.  Then, once the whistle blows, they move outside.

Better yet, watch Oergon's offense.  They have no issues being inside the #'s & they get plays off in 20 secs.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2012, 01:27:25 PM by TampaSteve »

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2216
  • FAN REACTION: +63/-12
Re: Should Rule 7-2-1 be altered?
« Reply #7 on: October 24, 2012, 02:25:08 PM »
Quote
I understand the reason for this rule - no sneaking players onto the field. But why does this apply to players already on the field, when we don't substitute at all?

Because there is such a thing called a pretended substitution.  Its just not the sneaking of players on, its the attempt to deceive the opponent into thinking the player may be coming off.  And its not just about drawing coverage.  The defensive coach in the booth or on the sideline has to try and determine if he is coming off or staying.  Moving him inside the 9's solves the issue.


Offline AFSST

  • *
  • Posts: 85
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-0
    • Colorado Springs Football Officials Association
Re: Should Rule 7-2-1 be altered?
« Reply #8 on: October 24, 2012, 02:53:15 PM »
So if the wing lines up outside the 9's before the RFP:

1. but the defense recognizes the formation and covers the wing, leave it alone. 
2. and the defense misses the wideout but the offense runs a play where that WR doesn't matter, leave it alone.
3. and the defense misses the wideout and he catches a pass, then flag the offense for an illegal formation.

I had a playoff game a few years ago where the visiting coach pre-gamed his trick play with us.  He told us the players would come out of a timeout from the sideline and all players would run inside the 9's and then one would come back to the sideline and stand almost OOB.  It worked, and the WR caught a TD pass.  I was the HL for that game.  I signaled the TD, waited for the players to separate, then made a beeline for my white hat because I knew the opposing coach would complain.  My chain crew (dads from the home team) started complaining to me and I patiently told them it was a legal play.  I let them vent a little because their kids were ranked #2 in the state and they were getting slugged by the #15 seeded team.  Then they were quiet.
Colorado Springs Football Officials Association
www.cosfoa.com

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3338
  • FAN REACTION: +255/-485
Re: Should Rule 7-2-1 be altered?
« Reply #9 on: October 24, 2012, 03:34:12 PM »
So if the wing lines up outside the 9's before the RFP:

1. but the defense recognizes the formation and covers the wing, leave it alone. 
2. and the defense misses the wideout but the offense runs a play where that WR doesn't matter, leave it alone.
3. and the defense misses the wideout and he catches a pass, then flag the offense for an illegal formation.


I agree with your suggestion for handling #s 1 and 2 above, but it's incomplete.  You left out the part of  getting those players attention after THAT play (even if it's somewhat inconvenient) and telling him what he did wrong, and if he should do that again, he will most certainly be flagged.  Chances are a lot more likely you won't have to deal with that problem again.

Offline ECILLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 367
  • FAN REACTION: +17/-2
  • Have fun & give 'em your best!
Re: Should Rule 7-2-1 be altered?
« Reply #10 on: October 24, 2012, 03:37:13 PM »
  [/quote]Play: Team A has no timeouts left, is in hurry up mode 1st and 10 at the 50 yard line (they just got a first down on the previous play). Clock is still stopped to reset the chains. Team A players are already at the line ready to snap the ball, but are awaiting the ready for play whistle. Players A80 and A82 are wide receivers lined up outside the numbers on either side of the field. Referee THEN blows the ready-for-play, and the ball is snapped immediately.[/quote]

On this play, as a wing, I am between the sideline and the numbers until U has placed the ball and R is about to give the RFP. If the wideouts are uncovered by D,  I remind them they need to be inside the numbers until the RFP. If D has them covered, I ignore and get in position for the play.



Offline Rulesman

  • The Keeper of the Keys
  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 3839
  • FAN REACTION: +323/-243
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: Should Rule 7-2-1 be altered?
« Reply #11 on: October 24, 2012, 04:29:38 PM »
The whole premise behind the rule is to eliminate the hideout play. I'm with AB on this one.
"Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it, because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence. I am not remotely interested in just being good."
- Vince Lombardi

Offline maven

  • *
  • Posts: 620
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-0
Re: Should Rule 7-2-1 be altered?
« Reply #12 on: October 24, 2012, 04:31:47 PM »
2. and the defense misses the wideout but the offense runs a play where that WR doesn't matter, leave it alone.

Disagree with this one. I believe the rulesmakers wanted this penalized more, and so gave it a 5-yarder (IF) rather than 15 (IP or UNS).

I want a flag on this one so that we don't have a flag for a pretend substitution or other, more severe, illegal act.
Quality is not an act, it is a habit.
Aristotle

Offline bbeagle

  • *
  • Posts: 407
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-27
Re: Should Rule 7-2-1 be altered?
« Reply #13 on: October 25, 2012, 07:39:31 AM »
The whole premise behind the rule is to eliminate the hideout play. I'm with AB on this one.

Completely agree.

The premise is to eliminate the hideout play, but this is not stated in the rule book. It's illegal even if the defense is covering the offensive players.

The non-hideout play is where I do NOT want to throw the flag, but by rule, I'm supposed to.

Offline TampaSteve

  • *
  • Posts: 1274
  • FAN REACTION: +14/-10
Re: Should Rule 7-2-1 be altered?
« Reply #14 on: October 25, 2012, 07:58:16 AM »
I know round these parts, for the most part, the rule is not enforced "to the T".  Not saying what's right/wrong, but what I have seen.
i.e.
1 - coming out of timeout, B is getting set, 'ready' is blown & A comes from sideline without the WR coming in the #'s & B knows he's there.
2 - after walking off a penalty, both A&B are nearly lined up when the 'ready' is blown & there's guy(s) outside the #'s & B knows he's there.

I know 'B knowing he's there' is not rule book verbiage, but I can say first hand that guys are rather lax with it if it's not a late sub, etc.

Offline Rulesman

  • The Keeper of the Keys
  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 3839
  • FAN REACTION: +323/-243
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: Should Rule 7-2-1 be altered?
« Reply #15 on: October 25, 2012, 08:15:29 AM »
Steve, as a wing I'm more apt to let #1 go if B is lined up head-to-head on A - common sense/no advantage gained. But I am also going to have a talk with A first chance I get - "you've used your mulligan for tonight." Point being, if I keep letting it go, somewhere later in the game it WILL come back to bite me.
"Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it, because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence. I am not remotely interested in just being good."
- Vince Lombardi

Offline TampaSteve

  • *
  • Posts: 1274
  • FAN REACTION: +14/-10
Re: Should Rule 7-2-1 be altered?
« Reply #16 on: October 25, 2012, 08:18:14 AM »
Steve, as a wing I'm more apt to let #1 go if B is lined up head-to-head on A - common sense/no advantage gained. But I am also going to have a talk with A first chance I get - "you've used your mulligan for tonight." Point being, if I keep letting it go, somewhere later in the game it WILL come back to bite me.
I don't disagree with you.  Just saying above that in the real world, at least round here, that is the axiom/mindset regaring inside the #'s.

Offline SD_Casey

  • *
  • Posts: 138
  • FAN REACTION: +7/-1
Re: Should Rule 7-2-1 be altered?
« Reply #17 on: October 25, 2012, 09:36:28 AM »
You guys are all so lucky.

You get to talk about keeping players inside the numbers.  All I ever get is 9-yard marks  :'(

Offline Roscoe

  • *
  • Posts: 160
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-0
Re: Should Rule 7-2-1 be altered?
« Reply #18 on: October 25, 2012, 09:53:39 AM »
My chain crew (dads from the home team) started complaining to me and I patiently told them it was a legal play.  I let them vent a little because their kids were ranked #2 in the state and they were getting slugged by the #15 seeded team.  Then they were quiet.

This is one of the things I cover in my pre-game with my chain crew. I let them know they are to keep quiet and just watch the game.

Offline bbeagle

  • *
  • Posts: 407
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-27
Re: Should Rule 7-2-1 be altered?
« Reply #19 on: October 25, 2012, 02:45:58 PM »
This is one of the things I cover in my pre-game with my chain crew. I let them know they are to keep quiet and just watch the game.

Pre-game with chain crew? If we're lucky! Some teams pay the chain crew, and others have regulars who do it, so no problem there... but 50% of the time we don't have it easy.

We ask for the chain crew 30 minutes before the game, and repeatedly thereafter, but usually after we've done the coin toss, we have to wait for a volunteer chain crew to be gathered by the home team announcer and coach before we can kick off. Then the HL and U go over a brief 30 second explanation of what to do, and throughout the game, the HL explains details to the chain crew.

Offline AFSST

  • *
  • Posts: 85
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-0
    • Colorado Springs Football Officials Association
Re: Should Rule 7-2-1 be altered?
« Reply #20 on: October 25, 2012, 03:02:10 PM »
Disagree with this one. I believe the rulesmakers wanted this penalized more, and so gave it a 5-yarder (IF) rather than 15 (IP or UNS).

I want a flag on this one so that we don't have a flag for a pretend substitution or other, more severe, illegal act.

I think we're just from two different schools of thought.  I am from the school of thought to "pass" on certain fouls based on score, situation, time left, etc.  I obviously won't ever pass on "safety" fouls (RTP, BIB, BBW, clip, faskmask, etc), but for me, this is one of the "pass" fouls. 

If I see a player that doesn't have all four points to his chinstrap attached but I can't get to him before the ball is snapped, I won't flag him for FTPWRE, I will remind him to strap up when the ball is dead.  If I see a kid without his mouth guard inserted, I'll blow the whistle, run past the kid to "speak" with the U, and tell the kid to put his mouth guard in.  If a team has interlocked legs on a try for point, I'll let the coach know, but I probably don't have a flag.  If a "covered" slot receiver fails to be properly in the backfield and doesn't catch the pass, I'm definitely not throwing my flag, but I'll have a conversation with the coach. If a team is down by 40 and one of their OL "disrobes" a DL, I'll probably pass, then I'll get a good chuckle when the parents of the winning team scream their disapproval.  The other day, with the score 54-0, the "zero" team threw a backward pass that fell do the ground.  The kids stood for a second while the "54" coach screamed it was a live ball.  I killed it and said it was an incomplete forward pass.  The "54" coaches yelled it was a backward pass.  I said "not right now it isn't." 

Of course, we will speak with the head coach and the involved players to remind them about the rule to be inside the 9's some time after the RFP.  But I think we need to understand the intent of the rule, and officiate accordingly.

We can have "slow flags" because we have the ability to determine the outcome of the play before we toss our rag.  For example, I don't like having a flag for holding when the runner is stopped at the LOS.  If the game is not a blowout, the foul "screams," and even grandma can see it from the top row of the stands, I have a rag.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2012, 03:10:14 PM by AFSST »
Colorado Springs Football Officials Association
www.cosfoa.com

Offline bigjohn

  • *
  • Posts: 342
  • FAN REACTION: +21/-31
Re: Should Rule 7-2-1 be altered?
« Reply #21 on: October 27, 2012, 07:54:06 PM »
rule 9-6 art 4
...It is illegal participation:
d. To use a player, replaced player, substitute or pretended substitute to decieve oppenents at or immediately before the snap or free kick.



This is to stop the hideout play, the 9 yard rule is to make sure everyone gets recognized whether they are subs or not. It also doesn''t say no huddle is exempt!

Offline bigjohn

  • *
  • Posts: 342
  • FAN REACTION: +21/-31
Re: Should Rule 7-2-1 be altered?
« Reply #22 on: October 28, 2012, 03:17:38 PM »
7.2.1 SITUATION A: Following a second down play, A89 comes onto the field
as a substitute for A93 but A89 stops 5 yards from the sideline as his team is
ready to snap the ball. Following the snap, A89 goes down field and catches A1's
legal forward pass for a first down. RULING: This is an illegal formation and if the
penalty is accepted it would be marked off from the previous spot. Depending
upon the situation, this could also be illegal participation. (9-6-4d)
« Last Edit: October 28, 2012, 03:22:56 PM by bigjohn »

Offline James

  • *
  • Posts: 688
  • FAN REACTION: +7/-6
Re: Should Rule 7-2-1 be altered?
« Reply #23 on: October 29, 2012, 02:11:08 AM »
You guys are all so lucky.

You get to talk about keeping players inside the numbers.  All I ever get is 9-yard marks  :'(

Count yourself lucky - we sometimes don't even get hash marks.

Offline Curious

  • *
  • Posts: 1217
  • FAN REACTION: +28/-44
Re: Should Rule 7-2-1 be altered?
« Reply #24 on: October 29, 2012, 10:49:00 AM »
Count yourself lucky - we sometimes don't even get hash marks.

In the Detroit Public School League, sometimes we don't even get LINES!