Re: offsides

On 2003-11-24 [EMAIL PROTECTED](JimR.) said:

   >>I wouldn't let team A snap the ball from an illegal formation
   >either.  There's no perfect solution to this. >

   >That was a perfectly rational explanation right up to the point
   >where you made the above statement.

   >Offensive fouls such as illegal formation, illegal shift, and
   >illegal motion are considered fouls "at the snap".  Until the snap
   >is made, Team A has the opportunity to correct the mistake by
   >getting into legal position or coming set for one second.

   >Why would you deny Team A such a chance?

[assuming I'm writing the rules and making substantive changes based on
philosophy] For the same reason as given previously -- because it's futile
for team A to put the ball in play under the circumstances.  Team A has the
opportunity to correct the mistake by not snapping the ball and then doing
as you say, and as I see it any such foul caused by their snapping the ball
should not allow team B to have the option of the play's result -- or of
dual fouls.

The situation at a free kick is different in that the problem is timing
between the kicker & other players.  There's a skill involved in players of
A getting as close to the restraining line as possible at full speed without
going over it before the ball is kicked, so I've more of a mind there to let
the ball be put in play and let B have the option of the penalty.

There are other "futile" situations in which I'd want play to be killed.
These are a bit tricky in that they require someone with a whistle to have
knowledge of more than one fact of the play, but what I'm about to describe
is not unprecedented -- it was formerly used in USAn football, and was on
the books until recently in Canadian football.  I'd have a live ball
whistled dead whenever it becomes obvious that with ordinary play, the
result of the play in progress won't stand.  This would occur if the offense
has committed a foul and possesses the ball far beyond the enforcement spot
(so it's obvious their opponents will accept the penalty if no subsequent
change of possession occurs and the runner doesn't turn around and run the
other way), and would also occur if each team committed fouls without
intervening COP.  In the first case, the runner might as well just sit down,
and in the latter both teams might as well stop playing.  Stopping play in
the 1st case also prevents the defense from committing their own foul.  (The
rule would actually be written specifying those 2 situations, i.e. the
assumption of ordinary play would be built into the rationale of the rule,
and not be a judgement an official would be required to make.)

The above would be a 2nd case (along with inadvertent whistle) wherein a
whistle would result in the ball's becoming dead.  Blowing that whistle
would require the official to know the necessary facts, and there would be
many plays during which those facts could not be known by a single official,
and hence the whistle, althought justified, would not be made.  The increase
in number of officials may be the reason the rule was stricken by governing
bodies 1st in the USA, then much later in Canada.  The more officials, the
fewer aspects of a play each sees.  However, the fact that such a potential
call would often be missed does not justify to me not having it available in
those cases where it could be made, as with ordinary play it does not
benefit either team for play to continue in such a case.

This would not be the only football situation in which an official is
empowered to kill play based on what amounts to a prediction, albeit a very
very sure one.  There's also the one about the failure of a try kick
becoming evident.

It would also not the the first in which killing the ball requires a
judgement call.  Such is the case with "forward progress" determinations,
which also carry an element of prediction (i.e. that the runner won't be
able to break out of the grasp).  The NFL even used to have a dead ball in
cases where the ball was being carried in a manner intended to consume time;
I saw that called once when a team trying to take a few more seconds off the
clock in the final minute ran a sweep to the right, then reversed field.

It should also be noted that the 2nd situation I described above -- fouls by
both sides during the same possession -- would not require any judgement.
And even the first situation -- offense possessing the ball far enough
beyond the potential enforcement spot that the defense will accept the
penalty -- could be rewritten to take the judgement out.  For instance,
R's continuing play after a post-possession team R foul is futile as soon as
they possess the ball at or beyond the SOF, unless you're using 0th down
rules -- but that just highlights the need for a 0th down.

Robert