confusion amongst the offensive coaches.

[With_Two_Flakes]

3rd and 10.

Team A break the huddle with 11, start to move to their formation.

An assistant coach on the sideline (who can't count) thinks there are 12 men on offense. he screams at A82 "We've got 12, get off the field!". A82 runs toward the sideline.

When he is a yard or two from the sideline, the Head Coach (who has better Math skills) realises the mistake so says "Stay on!". A82 stops and lines up as a wide receiver. No-one on Defense has noticed that he stayed on the field so no-one is covering him. They run the play, a sweep to the other side.

Legal or not? Rules / AR references?

[NVFOA_Ump]

Closest that would apply I believe is:  AR 9.2.2.VII. Team A is lined up in scrimmage kick formation and has been set for one second. One of the offensive backs shouts to and motions to A40, the blocker on the right wing, to get off the field. At the snap, A40 is in legal motion toward his sideline. A40 turns downfield and becomes a pass receiver. RULING: Penalty—15 yards from the previous spot. This is a tactic associated with the substitution process to deceive opponents.

When it's clear that interaction with the sideline has deceived Team B into thinking that the "departing" player is actually leaving then IMO we have to have a flag.

[El Macman]

3rd and 10.

Team A break the huddle with 11, start to move to their formation.

An assistant coach on the sideline (who can't count) thinks there are 12 men on offense. he screams at A82 "We've got 12, get off the field!". A82 runs toward the sideline.

When he is a yard or two from the sideline, the Head Coach (who has better Math skills) realises the mistake so says "Stay on!". A82 stops and lines up as a wide receiver. No-one on Defense has noticed that he stayed on the field so no-one is covering him. They run the play, a sweep to the other side.

Legal or not? Rules / AR references?

A sweep to the other side, eh? I guess they really did just screw up. Well, I'd let it go, but I'd make danged sure the coach knows that if they attempt a pass to that guy by doing something like that, it will be a foul.

[Rulesman]

A sweep to the other side, eh? I guess they really did just screw up. Well, I'd let it go, but I'd make danged sure the coach knows that if they attempt a pass to that guy by doing something like that, it will be a foul.

OK, ElMac, playing devil's advocate, what are you going to do if the sweep goes the other way as you describe, but a defender goes with A82. Deception? I think you still have one of these: 

[El Macman]

OK, ElMac, playing devil's advocate, what are you going to do if the sweep goes the other way as you describe, but a defender goes with A82. Deception? I think you still have one of these: 

If a defender covers him and the play goes the other way, then they haven't gained any advantage, so why flag it? I'd still have the conversation with the coach, giving them the benefit of the doubt about their intention.
Of course, if you can see this coming in tme, you might stop the clock and go and confirm the down, or clock status, or point out the hot chick in the 3rd row, or something, and give the defense a chance to match up. Then, play on.

[Osric Pureheart]

If a defender covers him and the play goes the other way, then they haven't gained any advantage, so why flag it?

I think the reasoning he's trying to express goes something like "by putting a defender out there to cover him, they've taken someone away from the point of attack, so the offense has gained an advantage".

For me this is situational.  The level we're at now in Britain, this is almost certainly an honest mistake which has gained them no advantage at all, so keep it in your pants and explain to the coaches that they could have been called.  However, the higher the level of the game, the more likely it is that they're smart enough not to screw up like that unless they're trying to pull a fast one...

[Rulesman]

I think the reasoning he's trying to express goes something like "by putting a defender out there to cover him, they've taken someone away from the point of attack, so the offense has gained an advantage".

Bingo!

[El Macman]

I think the reasoning he's trying to express goes something like "by putting a defender out there to cover him, they've taken someone away from the point of attack, so the offense has gained an advantage". Stop looking for reasons to throw the flag. Look for ways to NOT throw a flag. The intent of

For me this is situational.  The level we're at now in Britain, this is almost certainly an honest mistake which has gained them no advantage at all, so keep it in your pants and explain to the coaches that they could have been called.  However, the higher the level of the game, the more likely it is that they're smart enough not to screw up like that unless they're trying to pull a fast one...

That makes "zero" sense. Listen to what you said. "...by putting a defender out there to cover him,..." That only balances the situation. Had the defense NOT covered the guy, THEN the offense gains an unfair advantage, (via the apparent abuse of the substitution rules).

Oh, and at my age, I can't help but keep it in my pants.

[Rulesman]

That makes "zero" sense. Listen to what you said. "...by putting a defender out there to cover him,..." That only balances the situation. Had the defense NOT covered the guy, THEN the offense gains an unfair advantage, (via the apparent abuse of the substitution rules).

Oh, and at my age, I can't help but keep it in my pants.

I've quickly come to the conclusion a discussion with YOU makes "zero" sense. You've got your mind made up and nothing anyone says is going to change it, or at least get you to consider a different point of view. My sympathies to your crew.

[Kalle]

OK, ElMac, playing devil's advocate, what are you going to do if the sweep goes the other way as you describe, but a defender goes with A82. Deception? I think you still have one of these: 

Wouldn't that be legal deception? Isn't offense allowed to spread any (legal) number of receivers to the opposite side than where they are planning to run a running play? How does this situation differ from the one where there is no communication with the sideline and A82 positions himself wide? Would it be a flag if A82 is substituted by A93?

[NVFOA_Ump]

Wouldn't that be legal deception? Isn't offense allowed to spread any (legal) number of receivers to the opposite side than where they are planning to run a running play? How does this situation differ from the one where there is no communication with the sideline and A82 positions himself wide? Would it be a flag if A82 is substituted by A93?

The difference is the communication.  Once there is a clear verbal communication that there is a substitution issue and someone starts off of the field we've got a problem.  Team A can line up, shift all over the place, have a man in motion, etc. all legally, but once the verbal substitution deception (intentional or not) enters the picture we've got a problem.  If you want to make a judgment that there was no advantage gained, and the situation was obviously simple confusion, you're free to do that, but if the judgment is that any advantage is gained by team A because of that confusion then IMO we need the flag.

[Kalle]

Once there is a clear verbal communication that there is a substitution issue and someone starts off of the field we've got a problem. 

In this case, what, if anything apart from calling a timeout, can team A do to not warrant a flag? Yell at team B that "sorry, A82 isn't being substituted!"? Remember that rule 9-2-2 requires intent to deceive, if the intent isn't there, there can be no foul.

[NVFOA_Ump]

In this case, what, if anything apart from calling a timeout, can team A do to not warrant a flag? Yell at team B that "sorry, A82 isn't being substituted!"? Remember that rule 9-2-2 requires intent to deceive, if the intent isn't there, there can be no foul.

That's why it's a judgment call - you can decide not to flag.  Again, if you want to make a judgment that there was no advantage gained, and the situation was obviously simple confusion, you're free to do that, but IMO we have a flag required, unless you decide that there was no advantage gained.

[bushman]

I use the rule if I am confussed then it will most likely be a foul. It is on the offense to not use substitution in any way to confuse the defense.

[James]

Right, and if the defense covers the guy moving towards his sideline, there is no confusion. If they ignore someone thinking he is not going to be invloved in the play, there is confusion and deception.
If the player is substituted and the DB covers the new guy, also no confusion...

[bafra31]

Remember that rule 9-2-2 requires intent to deceive, if the intent isn't there, there can be no foul.

Intent to deceive isn't part of the rule. All it takes under 9-2-2-b is for there to be a simulated substitution/replacement (i.e. one that looks like one but isn't) and for the defence to be confused (not covering a player would be enough for me to call it). Actually, I did call one a couple of weeks ago (though there the intent was very much present).

[El Macman]

Intent to deceive isn't part of the rule. All it takes under 9-2-2-b is for there to be a simulated substitution/replacement (i.e. one that looks like one but isn't) and for the defence to be confused (not covering a player would be enough for me to call it). Actually, I did call one a couple of weeks ago (though there the intent was very much present).

Correct. "Intent to deceive" is not be part of the rule, but neither is "attempt." The rule is "...to confuse opponents..." If the defense covers the guy, they haven't been confused. I'd make sure he is well covered, or he is nowhere close to being involved in the play (as in the play that started this discussion), before I'd let the offense off the hook. But if the defense gets him covered, then, like the rule says, they haven't been confused. Don't get me wrong - I despise this tactic, when it works, and take great pleasure in nailin' 'em when they pull this crap. But, if it doesn't work, i.e., it results in that offensive player not being covered and he becomes a part of the play, then there is no foul.

[Kalle]

Intent to deceive isn't part of the rule. All it takes under 9-2-2-b is for there to be a simulated substitution/replacement (i.e. one that looks like one but isn't) and for the defence to be confused (not covering a player would be enough for me to call it). Actually, I did call one a couple of weeks ago (though there the intent was very much present).

I'm not a native English speaker, but dont the words "tactic" and "simulate" imply intent? The foul is for "unfair tactics".

I agree that the burden of proof is on the offense, if they use the simulation process in such a way that the defense ends up unintentionally not covering a player, even when done accidentally.

[NVFOA_Ump]

...  But if the defense gets him covered, then, like the rule says, they haven't been confused. Don't get me wrong - I despise this tactic, when it works, and take great pleasure in nailin' 'em when they pull this crap. But, if it doesn't work, i.e., it results in that offensive player not being covered and he becomes a part of the play, then there is no foul.

Someone's getting lost here.  Isn't it also a foul if the B-DB who has the A wing back who is just off of the shoulder of the tackle, realizes at the last minute that the "departing player" didn't depart and he leaves his inside man and matches up at the last minute with the "departee" so as you note "he's covered".  Then just one count later the QB throws a quick out pass to that now uncovered wing for a TD?  The fact is they still confused the defense, resulting in a defense that had already "matched up" with the offense being either wrong or mis-matched somehow, and this is still a foul by rule 100% of the time.

The single fact that the non-departing player is covered is no where near the whole story and is only one part of the judgment that we have to make here.  We need to judge that the actions of A did not confuse the defense as a whole, and ultimately A got a net zero advantage as a team.  In my opinion, if we have a defense that has been called, in position and waiting for the snap, that realigns at the last minute trying to figure out what they need to do because of a "false substitution", we've still got a flag.

[El Macman]

Someone's getting lost here.  Isn't it also a foul if the B-DB who has the A wing back who is just off of the shoulder of the tackle, realizes at the last minute that the "departing player" didn't depart and he leaves his inside man and matches up at the last minute with the "departee" so as you note "he's covered".  Then just one count later the QB throws a quick out pass to that now uncovered wing for a TD?  The fact is they still confused the defense, resulting in a defense that had already "matched up" with the offense being either wrong or mis-matched somehow, and this is still a foul by rule 100% of the time.

The single fact that the non-departing player is covered is no where near the whole story and is only one part of the judgment that we have to make here.  We need to judge that the actions of A did not confuse the defense as a whole, and ultimately A got a net zero advantage as a team.  In my opinion, if we have a defense that has been called, in position and waiting for the snap, that realigns at the last minute trying to figure out what they need to do because of a "false substitution", we've still got a flag.

Well, then, let me be your compass. I agree with you. But, in the play being discussed, no one suggested that there were any other mis-matches, although mis-matches in the interior of the offensive formation are going to be more difficult to define. If the tactic A use clearly confuses the defense and they aren't able to match up - within our ability to determine match ups - then A has fouled. But, in the play given, it was more like the DB initially appeared to have no specific assignment, i.e., "his guy" was missing; then, shortly before the snap he notices his guy and moves out to cover him, with no other effect on the defensive formation. No confusion, no foul. But, as you suggest, if the defense overloads to one side due to the offensive formation - at least what they can see of it - and they aren't able to fully adjust to match up, then you could justify a call, if the unmatched player has significant impact on the play. Easy on an uncovered wide receiver; a bit more difficult - but not impossible - on an inside receiver.

[Mark uk]

To me this is all about the play run, if they don't gain an advantage ignore it and talk to the coach, if they gain an advantage throw the flag.

[trixx32]

Deceiving play, call the foul.