Decieving the D

What I don't understand is that this play, or a version of this play, has been used in football since almost the beginning of the game. Its a direct snap. So now the QB can't go in motion? Is the Wildcat offense no longer a legal offense.



The whole option offense is based on deception, so this penalty could be called every week on AFA, Navy, Florida, Utah, etc. This is a bad rule.



I do think the worst call/non-call of the game was the play right after the OPI, where Pitta was tackled while running a very similar pass play, and would have scored without the obvious PI on the CB. No flag. Terrible officiating all game long.

I think the call was bogus--it would be even more bogus on a fake stop the clock play:



In the case of a Dan Marino fake clock the ball play, I don't see how refs can distinguish this from any other play. The offense runs a play that ends with the clock running. The offense hustles up to the ball, with the quarterback making the spike motion with his hands saying things like "Hurry." When the ball is snapped, the offense actually runs a play.



The only reason that this is deceptive is because the defense has relied on the QB's hand signal, when the hand signal actually has been changed to mean run a play. In my mind, it's no different than when the offense knows the defense has stolen a few hand signals, so the offense changes the hand signal and burns the defense. After all, the defense has stolen the clock the ball hand signal and the offense is just switching signals to stay ahead of the defense.

Exactly to both Mingjai and stuckinbig10country. How could the official know that RJ Willing simply didn't know that Max wasn't behind him? Is he 100% sure that Willing just didn't prematurely snap the ball and that thanks to some quick thinking and reaction by Harvey, a huge loss of yards was prevented? Is he absolutely positive that it wasn't a botched play? That Hall was actually trying to call an audible and Willing simply just snapped the ball unaware of an audible being called?



IF there is any room for any doubt then the play must be allowed to stand. Otherwise the referee needs to begin interpreting EVERY single play and determine whether there any attempt at deception going on. If rules are rules then need to be applied on every play. Any play with an attempt to deceive needs to be flagged and the team penalized.



ANY attempt at deception, whether it is a man in motion, play-action pass, hard snap count, varied snap count, reverse, half-back pass is now clearly illegal based on the precedent set by this official.

This penalty should also be called on any future fake punt attempts....



Deception, sir! Deception, I say!

After finally getting to watch the replay again on TV, I think the play was ruled illegal because of Max's action (hands out to the side like "WTF!?"), if he runs it like the Utah game last year where he just is motioning an audible, I don't think you can even squeeze it into the penalty category like these mother effin officials did last game.

ABYUFAN wrote:

Florwood wrote:
Another "example" in the NCAA memo says



4. Team A is trailing 38-34. Back A43 runs for a touchdown as the game clock goes to 0:00 in the fourth quarter, making the score 40-38 in favor of Team A. Team A’s coach tells the referee that his team will not attempt the try.

RULING: Because the margin is less than three points Team A must attempt the try. The result of the try could affect the outcome of the game. (8-3-2-a)



Does that mean that Bronco would now be penalized if he decides not to try the PAT,like he did in the 06 Utah game that we won 33-31--he didn't try a PAT to avoid the possibility of Utah blocking the kick and running it in for 2 points...

No, becuase BYU did indeed attempt the PAT. It was a two point conversion attempt that saw John Beck sacked for a two-yard loss.

That's right. The refs made us snap the ball; but rather than risking a blocked kick attempt, they just kneeled down

Correct, I believe Beck simply downed the ball on the try. If he would have fumbled then Utah could have returned the ball for 2 points.

Maybe we will be required to send a list of what plays (and in which order) we will run to the opposition a week in advance--that way there will be no deception. Running a broken play would be considered deception and flagged. ;)

Does this mean the fumblerooski is history? No more BSU statute of liberty? Say it ain't so!

BoiseBYU wrote:
Does this mean the fumblerooski is history? No more BSU statute of liberty? Say it ain't so!

Fumbleruksi hasn't been allowed for several years.

But Statue has been done recently, obviously. On a huge stage.

CAFB_04-12 wrote:
But Statue has been done recently, obviously. On a huge stage.

Not that I agree in any way, shape, or form with the call the refs made (or their interpretation of a completely ambiguous rule), and I also realize the Statue was brought up more tongue-in-cheek than anything, but I'd have to think that the Statue would be a valid play, even with the idiot rule interpretation, because the "trick" portion of the play takes place after the ball is live.

That's a good point.

I'm glad y'all discussed this. I didn't watch the game, but caught wind of this and have never known what happened. Thanks for discussing it. I want to see the play now just to see what was going on when it was called.

ttexastim wrote:
I'm glad y'all discussed this. I didn't watch the game, but caught wind of this and have never known what happened. Thanks for discussing it. I want to see the play now just to see what was going on when it was called.

[youtube]fhlXQvjuPHA&fmt=18[/youtube]





EDIT: I think the infamous NCAA memo was in response to this play--



[youtube]QNINS5kVI_E[/youtube]

I just read a new memo that says that you can no longer change the snap count on "O" either, in that that would "decieve" the "d"... :roll:

You know, at first I sort of agreed that you shouldn't be able to use the substitution process to hide a trick play. But after looking at that Georgia Tech clip I have changed my mind. It is the J-O-B of the defense to defend all 11 players on the field for the offense. If the player was in the field of play and is a legal player then the defense should be expected to defend him. If they don't it's not the fault of the offense and the offense shouldn't be penalized.



Memos from the NCAA is like leadership via email. It doesn't work. If they want to make a certain type of play (sub deception, etc) then they need to put that in the rule book (just like they have with changing jerseys to deceive the opponent). Nothing about Georgia Tech's play or BYU's play was unsportsmanlike. It was the epitome of offensive creativity. Whoever is writing these memos must have been a defensive player.

Didn't BYU do the same thing under Crowton years ago (same as GT that is)??? I don't know if it happened during a substitution though.



I agree. It's your job to defend the field. If you can't do it, you are 6 points in the hole.

I would argue that the GT play was unsportsmanlike and clearly should not be allowed. Air Force was simply not anticipating the time of the snap. All 11 players were accounted for and there was no attempt to hide a player from the defense. But the GT play clearly relied on a player getting "lost in the shuffle" of a substitution. GT was hoping one of their 11 players would not be accounted for. This was not a case of a defense being confused in their own personnel group and leaving a WR uncovered. This was GT hiding a player. The camera never shows it, but what if the player actually left the field, only to return right before the snap. I'm completely against the GT play. The BYU play should be allowed. It was 11 v 11.

Yes, BYU did do this a few years ago under Crowton, but it was different. It was not a whole personnel group coming on/off the field. One player ran to the sideine but never off. He simply went unaccounted for. That was a defensive lapse for the defense not covering a player. GT was clearly trying to make sure their opponent would not know who was involved in the play and who wasn't. BYU in both instances was not doing this. AF had every opportunity to know who was involved in the play and they simply weren't ready for the play. Actually the referee wasn't ready for the play.

Good points all I am still getting over the fact made clear from my good friend Kitic that the fumbleruski has been banned! I think that is a vestige of McCarthyism. What is so nefarious to justify its outright ban?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">