After this, people were saying that it’s the kind of play you only get away with once. For that school, maybe, but apparently Euless Trinity in Texas (the same state as before), didn’t get the message:
This was a more transparent play than the middle school one in Corpus Christi. The object of confusion was almost certainly the fact that the offensive line was in a standing position. I found the Driscoll play to be more problematic because it’s the kind of thing where a defense is much more likely to be reasonably afraid to tackle the player for fear of an unsportsmanlike penalty. In this case, it’s hard to imagine that after the proper snap that they would be penalized even if it were a mistake.
Defenders should be looking at the ball whenever the center’s hand is on it. When it’s snapped, the D-line should be blasting off, regardless of whether the O-linemen are standing or not. Worst case scenario in that case, the offense gets called for an illegal snap or a false start. Can’t imagine a penalty on the defense for making contact after the ball is snapped.
Comment by DaveinHackensack — December 30, 2010 @ 1:17 am
I think for this play, you’re right. The Driscoll case is a little more problematic because it specifically creates confusion as to whether or not what happened qualifies as a snap.
Comment by trumwill — December 30, 2010 @ 1:51 am
Agreed about the Driscoll case — and if it wasn’t a snap, then it wasn’t legal play.
Comment by DaveinHackensack — December 30, 2010 @ 3:08 am