Football Officiating > NCAA Discussion

Shaw Video Review 13

(1/1)

ElvisLives:
In watching Shaw's video review 13, I see that Notre Dame may have pulled a fast one by 'sort of' making it look like they would punt, but snapped the ball to a back who was close to, and directly behind, the snapper, but, technically, not with his hands in a position to receive a hand-to-hand snap. He receives the very short backward pass snap, and instantly hands it to a back who had squatted down so that he was hidden from view of the defensive line. Everybody else runs to the right, while the small back that received the handoff runs around the left end and uses his speed to score a TD.
In addition to a potential kicker at least 10 yards behind the NZ, they had a player in a direct line between the snapper and the potential kicker. This makes it NOT obvious that a kick would be attempted. Therefore, that was NOT a bona fide scrimmage kick formation, and they must have the requisite five (5) linemen numbered 50-79. They didn't.
Don't know if this got flagged, or not (kinda don't think it did). But, this is an illegal formation, for not having 5-linemen numbered 50-79. Shaw goes on to say that the Rules Committee would probably address this during the off-season. Sounds like an editorial change is coming. Right now, it just says 'no player in position to receive a hand-to-hand snap.' I suspect the rule will be edited to make it NOT a scrimmage kick formation when Team A has a player in a line between the snapper and a potential kicker 10 or more yards behind the NZ (i.e., a punt), or between the snapper and a potential holder and kicker at least 7 yards behind the NZ (i.e., a field goal attempt).
That will fix this problem. But, I'm sure coaches will keep pushing the envelope on what's legal and sportsmanlike (throughout the rules). Let's see what they come up with next.

dammitbobby:
Somewhat similar, I've seen over the last few years some teams (particularly smaller HS teams) line up in a pseudo scrimmage-kick formation, then suddenly drop a back deep right before the snap to kick the ball away.  What we would do, in that case, is because it's not obvious a scrimmage kick will be attempted, we wouldn't really worry about making sure that the snapper is uncovered... and coaches will still do this, and then complain that he was covered at the snap. I wonder if part of the conversation around any impending changes will be to address this the same way as an offensive substitution, going into substitution mechanics, holding the snap up, and allowing the defense to adjust, ensuring that the snapper is not covered (6-3-14-a).

There's a perceived advantage around trying to make the argument (from the coach's perspective) that technically he was covered up at the snap, even though they weren't given time to adjust. Other than the element of surprise, I wonder if that is part of the intent of running this motion/shift.

Legacy Zebra:
Elvis, this play did get flagged, and for the exact reasoning you lay out.

Bobby, I don’t think there will be a mechanics change. If it becomes an issue, I would expect Shaw to issue an interpretation that any late shift makes it not obvious and thus not a scrimmage kick formation. Until that happens, I agree with how you handle it. Don’t let them force B into a foul.

ElvisLives:

--- Quote from: Legacy Zebra on November 21, 2024, 06:42:42 PM ---Elvis, this play did get flagged, and for the exact reasoning you lay out.


--- End quote ---

Glad to know it got called. Shaw usually mentions something like, “So this was good alert to get this,” or, “This was correctly called.” Since he didn’t say anything like that, I thought, maybe, it didn’t get called. Good. Nip this garbage in the bud.

Navigation

[0] Message Index