Too bad this won't work at college level

Caven said:
While I would normally agree - this was the middle school state championship game in Texas and the team that pulled the play off was losing and used this play to tie the game late in the game. If you are playing for the state championship in Texas - regardless of the level - you should be prepared for anything.
Click to expand...

Eh...you should be prepared for anything, or I should be prepared for anything. I don't know that kids at this age would necessarily be prepared for everything, especially given the tactics used to make this "play" successful.

Championship game...all the more reason I tend to believe he wouldn't have called the play if he didn't think he could deceive the other team into thinking the play wasn't live.
 
These kids were 14 and 15 years old. They have been playing for awhile. It was in a Texas state middle school championship. The team that used the trick play lost. These kids are old enough to know not to let this happen. If you want to yell unfair at everything then football probably is not the sport for you.
 
By the same token, if you think this is a good play to call at this level, complete with all the pomp and circumstance on the sideline pre-snap, then you should probably stay away from coaching kids as well.

Yelling unfair at everything...LOL.

Also...if kids are 14 and 15 in middle school, it's a wonder Texas High School football is so good.
 
hawkfan2679 said:
By the same token, if you think this is a good play to call at this level, complete with all the pomp and circumstance on the sideline pre-snap, then you should probably stay away from coaching kids as well.

Yelling unfair at everything...LOL.

Also...if kids are 14 and 15 in middle school, it's a wonder Texas High School football is so good.[/QUOTE]

Yes with the way parents act I would not want to coach this age group. I have done a little coaching and have found the kids that are always calling foul or saying the other kids are cheating are always the kids that arent very good. They get to caught up in what everyone else is doing instead of thinking about what they could do themselves. Which is also a good life lesson that can never be taught to young.

Yes the age of these kids and the fact that we all know how football goes in Tx is more reason that these kids should have known better. The other video posted where this play didnt work and the kid got laid out looked to be younger kids and they didnt fall for it.
Click to expand...
 
Also I would like to add I would never run this play if I was the coach, reasons being:

1. The amount of time it would take to practice this could have been spent on way more important things.

2. Along with that if it doesnt work you look dumb and the kids now have to overcome a bad play.

3. There is no football skill involved in those six points.

On the other hand if I was the coach and had that play ran against my team I would:

1. Not stand for the kids saying that was unfair. I would tell them that they could have stopped it if they didnt get distracted.

2. Not want to hear the parents yelling about it because that sends the wrong message to the kids.

3. Tell the kids to use that as motivation and to stay focused.
 
hawkfan2679 said:
So you can just fly into a thread, quick call those that don't share your viewpoint a name, then self-proclaim yourself the voice of reason? Ok.:rolleyes:

Fumblerooskie isn't legal, so the reason is lacking there.

Let me just ask this question...if the coach thinks that the defense is going to know to react when the ball moves, "why the ball moves, or how it moves," does he run that "play"? You are kidding yourself if you think he does. If he doesn't, then he views the play as intentionally designed to create enough confusion between the kids yelling and the coaches yelling to deceive the defense into not knowing the ball is live.
Click to expand...

The fumblerooskie is legal. My highschool team ran it and a college team tried to pull it off last year.
 
DuffMan said:
The fumblerooskie is legal. My highschool team ran it and a college team tried to pull it off last year.
Click to expand...

It's been banned in college football since 1992 and in the NFHS since 2006...if you use a lineman to do the "rooskie-ing". You can still use eligible backs to carry the ball using the same action though...

Stopping a fumblerooskie, though, is simply a matter of finding the ball. So in essence it's no different than running an offense with really tight line splits, like a double wing. Hardly the same thing as intentionally deceiving/manipulating a teenager...
 
hawkfan2679 said:
One other thing as to the questionable legality of this play...

The defense gets 15 yards for simulating a snap count. They can't deceive an offense into thinking the play is starting...how is that any different than this offense deceiving the defense into thinking the play isn't?
Click to expand...

I am fully prepared to let this thread slip into oblivion, but I did want to point out one thing. Apparently there is actually a rule in the rule book stating that this play was illegal...

9.9.1 SITUATION B: From a field goal formation, potential kicker A1 yells, “Where’s the tee?” A2 replies, “I’ll go get it” and goes legally in motion toward his team’s sideline. Ball is snapped to A1 who throws a touchdown pass to A2.

RULING: Unsportsmanlike conduct prior to snap. The ball should be declared dead and the foul enforced as a dead-ball foul. COMMENT: Football has been and always will be a game of deception and trickery involving multiple shifts, unusual formations and creative plays. However, actions or verbiage designed to confuse the defense into believing there is problem and a snap isn’t imminent is beyond the scope of sportsmanship and is illegal.
Click to expand...
So as much as it was a low class play call, the referees failed just as much on this one.
 
Your problem here is that rule isn't applicable in the play witnessed.

They are specifically addressing "actions or verbage desigend to confuse the defense into believing there is a problem and a snap isn't imminent is beyond the scope of sportsmanship and is illegal".

In this play they did nothing more than execute an unorthadox (but legal) snap and stroll toward the endzone. They in no way attempted to decieve the other team that a play was not going to be run.
 
Last edited:
DuffMan said:
Your problem here is that rule isn't applicable in the play witnessed.

They are specifically addressing "actions or verbage desigend to confuse the defense into believing there is a problem and a snap isn't imminent is beyond the scope of sportsmanship and is illegal".

In this play they did nothing more than execute an unorthadox (but legal) snap and stroll toward the endzone. They in no way attempted to decieve the other team that a play was not going to be run.
Click to expand...

Here's a quote from one article:

Now, years later, when it was time for the 26-year-old coach to teach his young team the trick, he designed the play with the other players acting as if they had no idea what was going on either. What made it even better, says De Los Santos, was that the opposing line backer asked the walking Garza, no. 14, what he was doing and the Ranger quarterback answered, "I'm marking off yards," which completely threw off the opposing team even further.
Click to expand...

Here's a quote from another:

De Los Santos yelled out that referees needed to mark off 5 more yards for the offside penalty, and he told Garza to get the ball and do it himself. Garza nonchalantly asked center John Porter to hand him the ball over his shoulder - a legal snap - and then took five casual steps through the unaware Wynn Seale defense. Driscoll's offensive linemen started yelling at Garza in mock panic, asking him what he was doing - while all stayed in their stances.
Click to expand...
 
How do those quotes from the article not show "verbiage designed to deceive the defense into believing the snap isn't imminent"?
 
DuffMan said:
Because virtually all of the action occured AFTER the ball had been legally snapped.
Click to expand...

Coach yelling was pre-snap. QB asking center for the ball so he could "do it himself" was pre-snap. The only thing that wasn't presnap was the OL and LB asking what he was doing, of which the OL was choreographed.
 
And again none of that was to decieve the other team that a snap wasn't imminent, in fact it was just the opposite.

The coach instructed the player to go up to the center and ask for the ball and get 5 yards himself. While the instruction and the snap may have been unorthodox there is NO decpetion in that. The deception occured at and after the snap which is perfectly legal. Had the center snapped the ball between his legs in an orthodox way and the QB run a sneak for five yards there would be no debate that the play was legal, therefore there can't be any reasonable debate on the legalities of the play if the ball was snapped over the should and the QB strolls toward the endzone.

The players on the other team gave up a TD not because of the deception but rather because they forgot the cardinal rule of defensive football. That rule is when the ball moves you go until you hear a whistle.

All that said I'm done with conversation.
 
Last edited:
Except that the QB was deceiving the defense by saying he was going to mark off the yards himself. That's the deception...it was so deceptive, in fact, that the referees didn't even bother following the kid down field even after he took off running.

I need to stop replying as well, because every time I do, I end up spending more time here than I should! :)
 
I really dont think we have changed anyones minds here we have just rephrased what we think in ever post. Well at any rate good argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top