Weird substitution plays

[zebrastripes]

Thoughts?

https://youtu.be/Z1IG3lF5RNM

[ncwingman]

I don't like either of those. That's absolutely substitution with the intent to deceive. If you want to give the offense a warning foul before the USC, you have two options:

The first one is definitely illegal substitution when the players on the field started off the field, then turned around and went back on (and similarly for the substitutes that came on and then turned around to leave) - violating 3-7-3.

The second one could easily be a false start on the offense. While the center hadn't placed a hand on the ball, the abrupt motion of the linemen could conceivably be simulating action at the snap (7-1-7(a)) or an action intended to cause B to encroach (7-1-7(b)).

Or just toss a USC on the coach and be done with the shenanigans.

[HLinNC]

Play #1- Here's the problem with the illegal substitution.  Did the subs become players by rule?  Hard to tell if there was any communication between the oncoming players and the departing players.  I think we're better off with 9-6-4d (pretended substitution) and flag it for Illegal Participation.


Play #2- Can't have encroachment, snapper didn't have his hands on the ball.  I don't consider that movement abrupt.  Hard to tell if the linemen have their hand(s) below their knees or not. 

[bossman72]

Play #1- Here's the problem with the illegal substitution.  Did the subs become players by rule?  Hard to tell if there was any communication between the oncoming players and the departing players.  I think we're better off with 9-6-4d (pretended substitution) and flag it for Illegal Participation.
 

If there wasn't communication, how would the players on the field know to leave?

[HLinNC]

1) They saw the "punt team" come onto the field.
2) Pre-arranged play by the HC.

I'm not saying this isn't some hinky BS pulled by the team but as to the letter of Illegal Sub under 3-7-3, I'm not sure it would meet the definitions of player and replaced player.  Wouldn't you rather use 9-6-4d and pop them with 15 for Illegal Participation for pretended sub anyway?  Given the circumstances that we see in the vid, and not being on the field to hear what was going on, I think it is actually the easier case to make under the rules.

[ncwingman]

1) They saw the "punt team" come onto the field.
2) Pre-arranged play by the HC.

I'm not saying this isn't some hinky BS pulled by the team but as to the letter of Illegal Sub under 3-7-3, I'm not sure it would meet the definitions of player and replaced player.  Wouldn't you rather use 9-6-4d and pop them with 15 for Illegal Participation for pretended sub anyway?  Given the circumstances that we see in the vid, and not being on the field to hear what was going on, I think it is actually the easier case to make under the rules.

I don't believe there's any requirement that the communication must be verbal. If a player on the field sees the punt team come on, and therefore knows he must leave, the substitution has been communicated to him.

Now, if you argue that he knows that he's got to run around in a circle to make it *look* like he's substituting, but knows that he's not, then that's intent to deceive.

I also would rather shut it down quickly so the defense doesn't burn a timeout because of these shenanigans, like they did in this situation, instead of letting it go so I can nail them for 15 yards instead of 5.

[CalhounLJ]

The substitution rule never requires a substitute to communicate to become a player or replaced player, only states that it's an option. For example, in 2-32-12, after stating that a replaced player is one who has been notified by a substitute, the rule goes on to state, "A player is also replaced when the entering substitute becomes a player."

Looking at the definition of when a sub becomes a player, we find a list of options:
(1) When he enters the field and communicates...
(2) When he enters the huddle
(3) Is positioned in a formation
(4) Participates in the play.

These elements are not all inclusive. In other words, the sub doesn't have to do all these things to become a player, only one.
So, while communicating with a player or game official is certainly an option, it's not a necessity.

[CalhounLJ]

Having said that, I agree these should be fouls. Using substitution or pretended substitution to deceive.

[HLinNC]

Looking at the definition of when a sub becomes a player, we find a list of options:
(1) When he enters the field and communicates...
(2) When he enters the huddle
(3) Is positioned in a formation
(4) Participates in the play.

Thus is why I lean towards IP and commented that I'm not sure they ever became a "player" by definition.

1. is open to question, I admit.  2.-4. never happened in the video.

[CalhounLJ]

Thus is why I lean towards IP and commented that I'm not sure they ever became a "player" by definition.

1. is open to question, I admit.  2.-4. never happened in the video.

I see your logic. The problem I have with IP is the ball never became live. Can you have IP dead ball? I’m trending toward illegal substitution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HLinNC]

No, the play would have to be let go but under my hypothesis, you couldn't flag them for the DB Illegal Sub unless you deemed they had communicated because none of the other 3 events happened either

[SCline]

3-7-3 illegal substitution all day on the first play

Second play can’t be encroachment on the defense as the snapper has not placed his hands on the ball yet. I’d be okay with a false start on the near side wr or letting the whole thing go.

[KWH]

Play 1: UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT 9-8-1i Being on the field except as a substitute or replaced player! (This one goes on the Head Coach as this was clearly an act they were coached to perform.)


Play 2: FALSE START 7-1-7b, An act clearly designed to cause B to encroach!

For clarification, the Encroachment Flag thrown on B9 should be waived off based on Rule 7-1-8

[CalhounLJ]

Play 1: UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT 9-8-1i Being on the field except as a substitute or replaced player! (This one goes on the Head Coach as this was clearly an act they were coached to perform.)


Play 2: FALSE START 7-1-7b, An act clearly designed to cause B to encroach!

For clarification, the Encroachment Flag thrown on B9 should be waived off based on Rule 7-1-8

I agree completely on #2. After much consideration, I believe IP is the correct call in #1. I originally assumed to have IP the ball had to be snapped, but after reading and studying 9-6-4d, the phrase “immediately before the snap” seems to imply IP can be dead ball if it’s using a pretended substitution to deceive. Which this play clearly is.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[bama_stripes]

I agree completely on #2. After much consideration, I believe IP is the correct call in #1. I originally assumed to have IP the ball had to be snapped, but after reading and studying 9-6-4d, the phrase “immediately before the snap” seems to imply IP can be dead ball if it’s using a pretended substitution to deceive. Which this play clearly is

While I believe IP is a viable call in #1, I’d rather go with USC.  The yardage is the same, and it puts the responsibility where it belongs — on the HC.

I have a problem with a FS in #2. If by rule the defense can’t encroach yet, how can we have an act designed to cause them to encroach?

[CalhounLJ]

While I believe IP is a viable call in #1, I’d rather go with USC.  The yardage is the same, and it puts the responsibility where it belongs — on the HC.

I have a problem with a FS in #2. If by rule the defense can’t encroach yet, how can we have an act designed to cause them to encroach?

This is true. I never even thought to look at the snappers hands. Apparently neither did the wing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[bossman72]

Did encroachment always occur after the center put his hands on the ball, or was this a rule change?  I seem to remember that technically you can get called for encroachment any time after the ready for play, but maybe I'm misremembering.

[HLinNC]

Encroachment is a two step process after the RFP.

Step #1- No player can encroach by making contact with the ball or opponent or by being in the NZ "to give defensive signals"  7-2-5
Step #2- After the snapper places hand(s) on the ball, all the other encroachment provisions begin.  7-2-6

I've been calling since 1994 and the only change I can recall is when they added 7-2-6c to codify the defense making contact with the ball or snapper's hand or arm before the ball is released an encroachment foul.

[KWH]

Did encroachment always occur after the center put his hands on the ball, or was this a rule change?  I seem to remember that technically you can get called for encroachment any time after the ready for play, but maybe I'm misremembering.

In (late 1980's early 1990's) the words "Encroachment restrictions begin when the snapper places his hands on the ball!" were added to 7-1-6
This was to eliminate what many considered a "Chicken Sh*t" flag when big old bubba the defensive tackle, stepped into the neutral zone to see around his fat buddy as to where the ball was and look at the wing so he could simply line up correctly! This simple act allowed some over officious numb nuts to make a (way too) technical Encroachment call. The rules committee eliminated that foul with the wording change but did make it clear that if a defensive player stepped into the neutral zone to call defensive signals (even before the snapper has placed his hands on the ball) it was still encroachment (You don't see that too much any more and usually a good talking too will solve it).  Alas, the change ruined some good ole boy officials Friday nights! It was a good change to eliminate what many considered a very dumb interpretation.

HOWEVER - There has never been a rule, nor an interpretation, nor a case book play, which even suggests a FALSE START can not occur until after the snapper has placed his hands on the ball.

Play number 2 is a "Poster Child" sample violation of the spirit and intent of both Rules 7-1-7a and 7-1-7b 

I Plagiarized the following from 7.1.7 SIT A
These are acts interpreted to cause an opponent to encroach, and, therefore are infractions. It is the intent of the rules to prohibit such acts. Whether or not the action by A draws B into the neutral zone should not be the determining factor in ruling a False Start Foul.

Two applicable CASE BOOK plays are 7.1.7 SITUATION A and 7.1.7 SITUATION B

In my humble opinion/observation - Rather than spending time splitting hairs trying to justify or rationalize all these (bullsh*t) choreographed activities as legal,
Officials simply need to start calling all this garbage football what it is, a FALSE START!  Do that a consistently and, like magic, it will go away.



"...and that's about all I have to say about that!"

[bossman72]

Thanks guys.  I wonder why specifically defensive signals were put in there...  Maybe they didn't want defensive players to go listen in on the other huddle?

[blandis]

In NFHS this is Illegal Participation. You can't use a substitution, or feign a substitution, to confuse the defense. I don't know the college rule.