"Intent to Deceive"
November 9th, 2015 at 11:24 AM ^
in 1964. Coaches very quickly learned that the chaos of players entering and exiting the field could be used to advantage. Hence a flurry of rules to regulate the process and keep everything on the up-and-up.
November 9th, 2015 at 12:08 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 9th, 2015 at 6:18 AM ^
So, if Butt broke off early and went the other direction than the substitutes, this would not be a foul then? I can see why the refs thought he was going out. Couldn't they have just blew the whistle and understand what he is doing, as the play hasn't started yet? or is that illegal to do? By the way, I see many players do this during games. The confusion happened because there were players leaving in front of him.
The rule looks stupid to me.
November 9th, 2015 at 7:53 AM ^
November 9th, 2015 at 8:18 AM ^
November 9th, 2015 at 10:09 AM ^
November 9th, 2015 at 10:42 AM ^
"If there was no players leaving for substitution, would that have been called the same foul?"
No, it wouldn't have been a foul, because there was no substitution (and therefore, no "substition with intent to deceive"). It would have simply been a receiver lining up near the sideline.
November 9th, 2015 at 8:18 AM ^
November 9th, 2015 at 7:53 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 9th, 2015 at 9:09 AM ^
I would agree with the use of "exactly" if Michigan had only subbed one guy in/out. But they subbed three. Here is the process Michigan used, as I see it:
- Three guys run off.
- Three guys run on.
- Butt breaks huddle early.
Because you can't sub three guys for one (though the argument is that Butt is just that good?) this is either not deceptive, or is a poor deception. The ruling is very clear about this process:
- One guy runs off.
- One guy runs on.
- One guy breaks huddle early.
I don't see clear rulings about when the huddle must be broken. I think the question that I would be asking the refs is this:
How long does Butt have to wait on that play to make his early break of the huddle legal?
Here is my proposed answer: All three subs have to join the huddle for a time long enough so that 12 men in the huddle would be called if there were, indeed, 12 men in the huddle.
November 9th, 2015 at 11:06 AM ^
Your first #3 is wrong--Butt was never in the huddle, which was probably key to the penalty being called. Even breaking the huddle really early to simulate a substitution may have triggered the penalty, but not being in the huddle almost exactly matches the definition of the penalty.
November 9th, 2015 at 12:39 PM ^
The approved ruling still only involves 1 guy coming in. I mean, seriously, let's bring three guys in and only send one off and see if the refs let us play with 13? How is that, deceptive?
And how tight does a huddle have to be in order to be a huddle? They were all (Butt included) loosely bunched together.
Also, it's not like this was done with the intent to be illegal like some other plays -- See Buddy Ryan's polish goalline tactic, it was intended to put Jake Butt in a favorable matchup (preferably against air).
My point is this: The play does not fit the letter of the ruling which was seemingly applied and relies on definitions which don't exist in the rulebook. I think clarification needs to be made of some fashion. Otherwise, you should never defend the receiver nearest your opponents sideline when the team is going no-huddle and substitutes. Because the act of him lining up so near the sideline is clearly "intent to deceive." (Last sentence is only a little sarcastic. But srsly, by the definition that I saw applied, I'd like to know why every play that Baylor runs is not intent to deceive. I do not see a difference).
November 9th, 2015 at 12:41 PM ^
The rule says you can't use substitutions to deceive. The example given involves one person, but it's just an example.
I'm not sure if you're serious, but bringing 3 in and sending 1 off isn't deceptive unless it's being done very weirdly, so you would only get flagged for too many men, not deception.
November 9th, 2015 at 9:18 AM ^
they sub after they broke the huddle? In other words, is there a permissible and effective way to run this play where there is deception but no penalty? Was there something different about the way State ran it against us in 97 on the field goal that made that play legal and this play illegal? My guess is that there is a way to run it legally and that Harbaugh and that staff either misinterepreted it, or (and I actually believe this is possible) intentionally ran it illegally because they intend to use it legally at a more important time in a game. This actually could have been the most effective "fake out" in the history of the world if they have a version of the play that could legally be used later in the season or future seasons.
November 9th, 2015 at 11:05 AM ^
The rule application you cite here has been cited in many other places as well as justification for this call. It irks me a bit that there is a very important piece to this example application that does not apply to Michigan's situation that generally goes without comment.
In the example, player A1 leaves the field of play during the previous down. Therefore, when player A12 comes on and player A2 simulates leaving, the team appears to be doing a 1-for-1 substitution. It's an added level of "deception," and the fact that it's specifically included in the rulebook example suggests that it's a necessary level of deception in order to invoke the rule. If the ruling is valid even without player A1 leaving the field, why is he included in the explanation?
Michigan didn't simulate an even number substitution. They had 3 guys run on and 4 guys appear to run off. Couple that with Butt significantly lagging behind the other exiting players and I think you could make a decent case that the rule shouldn't apply here. It's defintely not a case of the refs getting something 100% wrong, but I don't think it's clear they got it right either. Seems like a judgement call to me, which is fine, since so many rules in football are.
November 9th, 2015 at 11:55 AM ^
Sorry, no, the accepted rulings section does not represent anything that's necessary for the rule to be invoked. It's just a set of examples that are intended to help people understand the rule. The rule is that a team cannot gain an advantage by confusing the opponent with their substitution pattern, and if you watch the GIF from the high camera -- it looks like Butt is running off of the field because he's been substituted. That's all that's necessary to invoke this rule. I think it's the right call.
I'm also a little upset that (a) Michigan would call a play that's unsportsmanlike, and that (b) Harbaugh would deny it in his presser. Michigan should be above this sort of tactic -- leave it for Sparty. And, if you've been caught, man up and admit it. Sure, we don't need to go all the way to a Hoke-ian apology, but a simple, "I guess we need to take that play out of our playbook" would work.
November 9th, 2015 at 12:39 PM ^
Harbaugh's denial that we were trying to run this as some sort of trick play smaks of the kind of thing we give other team's coaches a lot of crap for.
Just man up and admit that you tried to pull a fast one and got caught. All you do by trying to deny it is piss the officials off and get a reputation as a coach that whines about things even when the call is right.
November 9th, 2015 at 2:33 AM ^
Magic
November 9th, 2015 at 4:58 AM ^
November 9th, 2015 at 6:44 AM ^
Yes. Sedrick Irvin faked going off the field and was uncovered for the TD. No flag.
November 9th, 2015 at 7:10 AM ^
and I think it was their only score of the game.
November 9th, 2015 at 7:26 AM ^
Fake field goal, pass for TD. And yes, they didn't score again after the extra point. Same game as Woodson's highlight-reel one-handed INT.
November 9th, 2015 at 10:44 AM ^
IIRC, this rule is a relatively recent adaptation, so I'm not sure if it was illegal when Sedrick Irvin ran it. I could be wrong on the timing, though.
November 9th, 2015 at 5:14 AM ^
Most sports rulebooks have a clause written giving officials the authority to make rulings on situations that are not explicitly covered, to preserve the integrity of the game, or something similar that.
November 9th, 2015 at 5:16 AM ^
I would imagine if there were no such rule, the Oregons and Baylors of college football would be pulling that sort of thing all the time.
November 9th, 2015 at 5:52 AM ^
Did Harbaugh try it just to 'run it up the flagpole' to see it it would fly? Maybe he'll request a clarification of the call then tweak it to stay legal but hopefully still deceive. Maybe he'll never try it again but now it is on film for our future opponents to worry about.
Why try it up 22 against a beaten opponent? Maybe this was a good time to risk a big penalty. Maybe Rutgers week is a good time to spend time teaching trick plays.
Maybe it was taught differently but the particulars of this situation made it less legal. For example, maybe Butt wasn't supposed to skip the huddle completely but the previous play had him on the far sideline so he felt rushed to catch up with the departing subs.
Trying to understand Harbaugh leaves me saying 'maybe' a lot.
November 9th, 2015 at 8:25 AM ^
^ This
I get the feeling he was testing the waters and we may get something similar against OSU. What if he had ran through the huddle?
November 9th, 2015 at 7:10 AM ^
You don't suppose Harbaugh trotted it out when we're way ahead like that to be sure refs caught it if used against us? Nah. Guess he would have before MSU
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 9th, 2015 at 7:18 AM ^
tried it to see what they could get away with. Or send a message to those who are gonna watch the film. Or it might have been a way to insult the refs because they've been so bad this year.
My thought is that he wouldn't waste such a crafty play on Rutgers with a substantial lead if he was certain that he would get away with it.
November 9th, 2015 at 7:55 AM ^
Maybe harbaugh want to use this play to test whether the BIG refs are intent to deceive Michigan.
November 9th, 2015 at 8:17 AM ^
What I take from all of this is that we have coaches that have are creative and innovative and don't just keep having our running backs go up the middle 3 plays in a row. for no gain.
Love me some Harbaugh.
November 9th, 2015 at 8:37 AM ^
MSU didn't get flagged for it, in fact they got a touchdown. I believe Cedric Irvin was the receiver.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 9th, 2015 at 9:33 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 9th, 2015 at 9:39 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 9th, 2015 at 8:48 AM ^
Sometimes I do wish Harbaugh didn't antagonize the refs so constantly, though you love to see him fight. This kind of infraction isn't called that often, but we've been warned or penalized on substitution "strategies" in several games (e.g. 12 men in the huddle, congregating at the hash, etc.). It's on film, and I'm sure become a point of emphasis for the refs.
Substitution tactics have become a bit of an irritating strategy nexus in football. This is our version of what Oregon and the hurry-up offenses are doing.
November 9th, 2015 at 10:13 AM ^
is you didn't witness much of the Bo era
November 9th, 2015 at 8:57 AM ^
There is a thread about this subject that was created on Saturday during the fourth quarter of the game.
November 9th, 2015 at 9:27 AM ^
November 9th, 2015 at 9:40 AM ^
for not looking 4 pages back to 5:30pm during the game when someone posted about this. I had an amazing night out at a fancy dinner while trying to follow the game with espn updates on my phone, and then went and saw Stevie Wonder. I finally saw the whole game really late that night and was mad about that call. I am willing to give up some mgopoints to sacrifice in order to figure out what the fuck happened. Mgousers did not disapoint, and now I know about this rule burried deep in the book. Thanks everyone and feel free to neg me again. I probably deserve it.
November 9th, 2015 at 9:40 AM ^
Offense is improving weekly so i don't see a need for deceptiveness. I just like to see them line up and punch them in the mouth. Then again I can see Jim sneaking in a few rabbit punches after the bell. Go Blue !
November 9th, 2015 at 9:46 AM ^
They have Darboh and Chesson listed as seniors. I know Chesson red shirted so we have him another year. Isn't Darboh eligible for a 5th year as well since he missed the entire 2013 season with a foot injury? I'm curious why we haven't heard anything on this or did he use a red shirt in a prior year?
November 9th, 2015 at 10:46 AM ^
Both are redshirt juniors.
Since Harbaugh arrived, "redshirt" has been removed from the roster. Third-year players are juniors, second-year players are sophomores, etc.
November 9th, 2015 at 11:16 AM ^
No-huddle hurry-up offenses all involve intent to deceive and the substitution process. They prevent defenses from substituting players appropriate to the new down and distance. These offenses can dictate when and if a substitution may be made by the defense. These offenses are much more "unsportsmanlike" than anything Michigan did on the play in question.
This %$#$)^@ rule is a joke and should never be called unless a replacement player actually is coming onto the field.
November 9th, 2015 at 11:23 AM ^
sorry if this has been commented on already, I haven't seen it. In the 1997 game one of MSU's only positive plays (and IIRC the play that led to their only points on the day) was on a fake punt where they ran a receiver onto the field in a gunner position from their bench sidelline very very late. MSU claimed afte the game the player had run past the numbers but it was bunch of BS. That was intent to deceive if there ever was.