substitution question

[ColtsLax]

middie A1 is carrying down the bench sideline, being pursued from behind by B1. B1, seeing his LSM B2 standing in the far corner, steps off. B2 steps on and,

1.) legally body checks A1
2.)stick checks A1

and dislodges the ball from A1. What are the calls, assume the body check is otherwise legal.

[LoyolaMiddie878]

sounds like a very, very smart, clean play

i don't think there should be any penalty.

[LaxRef]

middie A1 is carrying down the bench sideline, being pursued from behind by B1. B1, seeing his LSM B2 standing in the far corner, steps off. B2 steps on and,

1.) legally body checks A1
2.)stick checks A1

and dislodges the ball from A1. What are the calls, assume the body check is otherwise legal.

I'm assuming that B1 gets off the field legally and B2 steps onto the field legally before making contact. In that case, (2) is clearly legal. I'd rule (1) is legal as well, but there is this case:

A.R. 6. B1’s penalty time expires just after faceoff whistle is blown. May B1 enter the field and initiate contact with an unsuspecting player? RULING: No, B1 must wait for possession to be called and may then enter the field in the normal manner from the special-substitution area and prevent hitting an unsuspecting player.

It is possible to make the inference from this that any time a player comes on the field from the special sub area he must refrain from hitting an unsuspecting player, but I believe that inference is unwarranted.

[laxdevil666]

Navy did this, intentionally or not, two three years ago agians Syracuse in the finals. there was no penalty, just the syracuse player got blind sided. I dont remember if it was the player that was persuing him that stepped off, but it was a player comming out of the substitution box that hit him.

[LaxRef]

Navy did this, intentionally or not, two three years ago agians Syracuse in the finals. there was no penalty, just the syracuse player got blind sided. I dont remember if it was the player that was persuing him that stepped off, but it was a player comming out of the substitution box that hit him.

Of course, whether particular officials did or did not make a call does not mean that that was the correct call.

[BlueJaysLaxFan]

I'm assuming that B1 gets off the field legally and B2 steps onto the field legally before making contact. In that case, (2) is clearly legal. I'd rule (1) is legal as well, but there is this case:



It is possible to make the inference from this that any time a player comes on the field from the special sub area he must refrain from hitting an unsuspecting player, but I believe that inference is unwarranted.

What CLax is describing above is what we've been intructed to call either an illegal procedure or a substitution infraction technical, since B2 is waiting at the other end of the box and is gaining an unfair 3-4 step advantage by stepping on just as B1 steps off. This is usually a planned play.

Being that I am not the reverse quiz master, I was hoping that LR would brew this one up at some time (hence my earlier hint).

[LaxRef]

What CLax is describing above is what we've been intructed to call either an illegal procedure or a substitution infraction technical, since B2 is waiting at the other end of the box and is gaining an unfair 3-4 step advantage by stepping on just as B1 steps off. This is usually a planned play.

I'd love to know how they're justifying that call, since AFAICT this play does not meet any of the criteria for a sub infraction or an illegal procedure. Sure, he's gaining a 3-4 step advantage, but completely within the rules. Both teams have the ability to avail themselves of this opportunity.

[BlueJaysLaxFan]

I'd love to know how they're justifying that call, since AFAICT this play does not meet any of the criteria for a sub infraction or an illegal procedure. Sure, he's gaining a 3-4 step advantage, but completely within the rules. Both teams have the ability to avail themselves of this opportunity.

I'll check in with the local trainer(s) and rules interpreter again on this since it's been since February during refresher training when we were told of this. I'm also curious to see if LF25 has used a similar interpretation once he gets back from climbing Mt. Washington!

[laxfan25]

I'll check in with the local trainer(s) and rules interpreter again on this since it's been since February during refresher training when we were told of this. I'm also curious to see if LF25 has used a similar interpretation once he gets back from climbing Mt. Washington!
He's baaack!
In the situation described, if it is a timely substitution I think it is a legal play. We did have a couple illegal sub calls this year, but they were instances where the player coming in delayed his entry in order to be sneaky. IMM as long as the guy steps off and the other player steps on - no problem. As far as gaining several yards, that's the reason teams run sub patterns like that - all part of the game as written.

[BlueJaysLaxFan]

He's baaack!
In the situation described, if it is a timely substitution I think it is a legal play. We did have a couple illegal sub calls this year, but they were instances where the player coming in delayed his entry in order to be sneaky. IMM as long as the guy steps off and the other player steps on - no problem. As far as gaining several yards, that's the reason teams run sub patterns like that - all part of the game as written.

That makes more sense to me, and I now remember that's the way it was explained to our group.

[Woodenstick]

NFHS has the same rule about entry after a penalty, ruling 7.2 situation E.

The issue is not the gaining of 3-4 steps, but the danger inherent in an "ambush" when a player comes right out the box and clocks an unsuspecting opponent. To me the reason behind the "entry after a penalty rule" applies to all substitutions, and therefore both plays discussed above should be illegal. I admit they do not violate the substitution rules, so I would have to rely on the entry after a penalty ruling. Initiating a check right out of the box could be dangerous therefore should be barred, even if we need a rule change to do so.

Where the sub delays at all in the box waiting for his opponent so as to check him, this would violate the substitution rules.

[LaxRef]

NFHS has the same rule about entry after a penalty, ruling 7.2 situation E.

The issue is not the gaining of 3-4 steps, but the danger inherent in an "ambush" when a player comes right out the box and clocks an unsuspecting opponent. To me the reason behind the "entry after a penalty rule" applies to all substitutions, and therefore both plays discussed above should be illegal. I admit they do not violate the substitution rules, so I would have to rely on the entry after a penalty ruling. Initiating a check right out of the box could be dangerous therefore should be barred, even if we need a rule change to do so.

Where the sub delays at all in the box waiting for his opponent so as to check him, this would violate the substitution rules.

If he delays entry, I'm all for calling the foul. However, I have a hard time seeing how you justify calling it if it's a clean sub based on an A.R. that clearly refers only to releasing from a penalty. I mean, if I'm running down the sideline with a guy chasing me, and I see someone step up into the sub area, shouldn't I be able to anticipate that guy stepping onto the field?

If you're going to call this when the sub is not delayed, you might as well flag a team for USC when a guy steps over midfield on one side so a guy on the other side can go across midfield and bodycheck someone without getting an offside call.

[Woodenstick]

I found another citation that seems applicable. NFHS ruling 5.8 situation E states:

"B2 enters the field of play correctly under the special substituion rule and immediately bodychecks A1, who is in a vurnerable position. Ruling: Unnecessary roughness if the body check was avoidable."

This ruling would seem to make "ambush" body checks out of the substitution box illegal. As for "ambush" stick checks, neither the penalty release or sub rules address the issue, but there is a penalty ruling that implies that stick checks coming out of the box also are not legal. Whether they currently are legal can be argued, but in my opinion ambush stick checks also should not be permitted.

[LaxRef]

I found another citation that seems applicable. NFHS ruling 5.8 situation E states:

"B2 enters the field of play correctly under the special substituion rule and immediately bodychecks A1, who is in a vurnerable position. Ruling: Unnecessary roughness if the body check was avoidable."

The question, of course, is what constitutes a vulnerable position? If I gain 5 yards by the sub and the guy sees me stepping onto the field while he's running up the field, I'd have a very hard time buying the argument that he was in a vulnerable position. If the guy is bent over scooping a loose ball and can't see me approach, then I'd buy it.


This ruling would seem to make "ambush" body checks out of the substitution box illegal. As for "ambush" stick checks, neither the penalty release or sub rules address the issue, but there is a penalty ruling that implies that stick checks coming out of the box also are not legal.

Pllease share this ruling with us.

Whether they currently are legal can be argued, but in my opinion ambush stick checks also should not be permitted.

Why? I just don't understand your reasoning here, because in this case you can't even legitimately argue that it's a safety issue. Both teams can take advantage of this tactic, and players on both teams should be aware that it they run right by the sub box this could happen.

[eme]

Legal play if ballcarrier can see/prepare for the bodycheck.
Illegal if ballcarrier is caught by surprise/vulnerable..i.e. he is "lined up" (this is often the threshold we use for UR in hs play)

As for a mere stick check on the ballcarrier: legal. No safety issue involved.

[LaxRef]

Legal play if ballcarrier can see/prepare for the bodycheck.
Illegal if ballcarrier is caught by surprise/vulnerable..i.e. he is "lined up" (this is often the threshold we use for UR in hs play)

I guess I have a hard time seeing how this wouldn't be covered by the usual UR rule; I'm not sure we need a special case here.