Spike play

[FBstripes]

This play, from the last weekend, has started a discussion:

With about 8:50 left to play in the 1st quarter. QB A1 completes a pass down to the 10-yard line.  The ball is spotted and the referee marks it ready for play.  The QB notices that team B is making substitutions and rushes his team to the LOS.  The ball is snapped and the QB spikes the ball before team B can complete their substitutions and a flag is thrown for illegal substitution on team B. 

Could the spike by team A be considered an illegal forward pass? 
Or can team A spike the ball legally on any down as long as they meet the requirements of doing it immediately?
Does team A have to be conserving time to meet the exception?  Is there a philosophy in determining when a team starts to conserve time (e.g. 2 minutes)?
Would it matter if the clock was not running after being spotted?

[CalhounLJ]

7.5.2 SITUATION G:

Quarterback A1 is in shotgun formation directly behind the snapper. A2 is legally in motion behind but parallel to the line of scrimmage. At the snap, (a) A1 receives the snap and sensing an all-out blitz, throws the ball to the ground; or (b) A2 who is directly behind the snapper at the time receives the snap and sensing a loss of yardage, immediately throws the ball to the ground.

RULING: Illegal forward pass in (a) and (b). The exception purposefully and intentionally only allows for a player to throw the ball to the ground to conserve time, not to conserve yardage.

I assume this would apply to a penalty situation also. So the answer is illegal forward pass.

As far as determining intent, the game situation would dictate. If it makes sense that the Qb was trying to conserve time, the exception applies. If it doesn’t make sense, it’s probably an illegal pass

[HLinNC]

How many B players were on the field at the snap?  How many were coming on at the snap?

[FBstripes]

2 on and 2 off.  Players going off were at the numbers.

Could the fouls offset

[blandis]

Looks like you have offsetting fouls.

[HLinNC]

Yeah, we've got an offset. 

[AlUpstateNY]

Yeah, we've got an offset.

Seems like a judgment call.  Would seem to depend on whether "B" was guilty of being slow in getting off the field.  Too bad we still don't have the Ref DECLARE the ball RTP (after observing the surroundings and assessing whether ALL circumstances are ACTUALLY RTP).  Seems somewhat similar to other efforts by "A" to CAUSE/DRAW "B" to foul.

[CalhounLJ]

2 on and 2 off.  Players going off were at the numbers.

Could the fouls offset

This is not judgment at all, and has nothing to do with the Ready for play. Defense substituted 2 for two. The two replaced players didn't get off the field before the snap. That's as objective as it can get.

[HLinNC]

 

Players going off were at the numbers.

Wings can't cover THAT up with a step in.

[CalhounLJ]

Wings can't cover THAT up with a step in.

Exactly. And even if we were back in the old days, I’m not delaying the RFP so B can substitute. That would be an unfair manipulation of the rules and would giveB an unfair advantage. That’s another reason I love the :40. Takes that temptation away.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[AlUpstateNY]

Exactly. And even if we were back in the old days, I’m not delaying the RFP so B can substitute. That would be an unfair manipulation of the rules and would giveB an unfair advantage. That’s another reason I love the :40. Takes that temptation away.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

But, burning off the first 25+ seconds, then quickly exchanging wide outs (on the home side) and trying to induce "B" into making hurried substitutions to counteract "A's" maneuver, is OK (especially when it's 3rd & short).

Sometimes "judgement" can help avoid inappropriate benefits of questionable behavior, but it rarely can do much to resist temptation to try something inappropriate..

[PABJNR]

Ok so if they burn off 25 then there is 15 left.........so instead of burning off 25 they burn off 10 under old timing.... same result. 40/25 has nothing to do with this. Until there is a matchup rule this can legally occur as B is not entitled to match up by rule, they match up at their peril.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CalhounLJ]

Ok so if they burn off 25 then there is 15 left.........so instead of burning off 25 they burn off 10 under old timing.... same result. 40/25 has nothing to do with this. Until there is a matchup rule this can legally occur as B is not entitled to match up by rule, they match up at their peril.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You’re wasting your time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AlUpstateNY]

This is not judgment at all, and has nothing to do with the Ready for play. Defense substituted 2 for two. The two replaced players didn't get off the field before the snap. That's as objective as it can get.

Allow me to try a different approach, On the top of page 6 of the NFHS 2020/21 "Game Official's Manual, it suggests, "Game officials must have a football sense which supersedes the tactical application of the rules so that the game goes smoothly.  Game officials are expected to exercise good judgment in applying the rules."

Such judgment is NOT an excuse to ignore the rules, but provides some discretion in applying them.  Football is a game of seizing advantages, but only when those advantages are earned and appropriate for the situation involved.  Being prepared to substitute to gain an advantage by a substitution is usually an earned advantage, however if it is executed in such a way to deliberately and  inappropriately dis-advantage the opponent, it may create an unfair dis-advantage.  The "official's judgement" in applying the strict letter of the governing rule may, in fact, may actually support the unfair effort by holding the opponent's reaction to a strict tactical interpretation, whereas a slight judgmental adjustment, to the circumstance, may actually better allow the stated purpose of the rule to balance and prohibit any unfair advantage being suffered by either contestant.

As the above approach suggests, such judgments that negate inappropriate efforts, without creating any unfair advantage being gained by the opponent, allowing the situation to continue as basically intended, assists "the game to go smoothly".

Page 6, further advises, "Preventive officiating" facilitates the smooth conduct of a game within the rules. The good game official, by actions and/or by words can frequently prevent certain fouls from happening."   

These suggestions relate specifically to High School  level rules, ONLY. Higher level contests and designed rules, considering the more extensive maturity and experience of players, may prefer stricter technical compliance.

[CalhounLJ]

If you are suggesting that we somehow withhold the ready to bail B out of an illegal substitution foul, or even ignore the fact that there are two extra players on the field, that’s not good judgment or discretion. That’s cheating.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[HLinNC]

The proper thing to have done was to do what is right.  Enforce the IFP on A and the ISub on B, wash it out, replay the down.  Anything else violates the principle of advantage/disadvantage.

Improper enforcement of the situation is what led to an inequity.   Some made up, on the fly, insert NCAA rule, bull cookie idea by the white hat only exacerbates it.  For someone who preaches the sanctity of the NFHS rule book, that's an odd stance to take.

[Ralph Damren]

Spiking when not trying to conserve time = IFP + IS/B = offsetting fouls = "a do-over"    …..'Nuf said   

[NVFOA_Ump]

Don't disagree that we have to enforce the rules as written but have seen several times where A is "going for it" on 4th and short yardage then last minute the punter comes out as almost immediately B responds with several return team subs but the punter turns and goes directly under center and takes a quick snap drawing a flag on B.  Pretty obviously a coached play that has effectively used the substitution process to deceive.  IMHO this needs to be fixed by the rulesmakers as it has been fixed in all other codes.

[HLinNC]

I don't know too many HS teams around here that could pull all that off in :40 without a timeout.

[refjeff]

Don't disagree that we have to enforce the rules as written but have seen several times where A is "going for it" on 4th and short yardage then last minute the punter comes out as almost immediately B responds with several return team subs but the punter turns and goes directly under center and takes a quick snap drawing a flag on B.  Pretty obviously a coached play that has effectively used the substitution process to deceive.  IMHO this needs to be fixed by the rulesmakers as it has been fixed in all other codes.

What I don't like is when A substitutes in their 4 or even 5 wide receiver package and then runs the ball, or even worse, subs in their two tight end two running back short yardage offense and then throws a pass.   The  coach is clearly using the substitution process to deceive and this needs to be fixed by the rules makers

[HLinNC]

What I don't like is when A substitutes in their 4 or even 5 wide receiver package and then runs the ball, or even worse, subs in their two tight end two running back short yardage offense and then throws a pass.   The  coach is clearly using the substitution process to deceive and this needs to be fixed by the rules makers

You're joking, yes?

[CalhounLJ]

Lol I hope so. When I first read that I was like,



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[AlUpstateNY]

Don't disagree that we have to enforce the rules as written but have seen several times where A is "going for it" on 4th and short yardage then last minute the punter comes out as almost immediately B responds with several return team subs but the punter turns and goes directly under center and takes a quick snap drawing a flag on B.  Pretty obviously a coached play that has effectively used the substitution process to deceive.  IMHO this needs to be fixed by the rulesmakers as it has been fixed in all other codes.

"Deception" (confusing, faking out, surprising, misleading) your opponent, when done in complying with established rules, is not only legal, in most cases it is EXPECTED, or at least "should be" throughout every game.  At the NFHS level, many players are developing multiple skill sets and are routinely expected to fill multiple roles.  Numbering requirements and regulations are intended to restrict such capabilities, somewhat, but multi-talented players are often used to fill multiple roles in Offensive and/or Defensive roles.

Substitution rules are designed to limit player roles and assignments and allow teams to replace players, regardless of position whenever it may benefit their approach, as long as those replacements meet the NFHS Rules guidelines REGARDLESS of whether it confuses opponents, or presents an advantage as long as it complies with (various) rules.

The opponent has access to each of those rules and part of their challenge is to be prepared for, and flexible enough to contend with, personnel changes that are compliant with existing regulations. An important part of "the game" is the ability to meet, and offset, unexpected (legal) challenge.