Coach, wrong ball video

[user 62394]

It is a cheap, BS trick and I would be PO'ed if I was involved in that game at all. This reminds me of the old "Hide the ball in the first baseman's glove after a conference on the mound" trick in Baseball. It's cheap, and does not help kids to learn how to play the game at all. Kids should be learning the fundamentals of how to play at that age, not how to trick and steal a way to win at any cost. Legal, yes (if that is actually a legal snap. I'm not sure it is), but cheap. Awesome example.



I wouldn't let my kid (if I had one) play for a coach that pulled that kind of crap.



Rocks

 

[Bill V]

Tiger, way to call it correctly. There is nothing wrong with this play. It's no different than a fake anything, or a reverse, etc. etc. etc.



Travis, it was a legal snap. A snap doesn't need to go between the legs. It's the most frequently used method, however, as doing so puts the center in the best position to execute a block.



Some of you have said that if your kid had been on the team that scored on this play, you wouldn't let him continue to be on it. I take just the opposite stance--if my kid had been on the opposing team, and the coach of my kid's team whined too much about it not "being fair", or not "being in the spirit of competition", or that it somehow "disrespected" someone, or any other BS, I'd pull my kid off THAT team. You got duped, plain and simple, fair and square. Learn from it, don't let it happen again, maybe even try to pull it off yourself sometime. But regarding it happening to you--quitchyerbitchin.

 

[Bill V]

BTW, Travis, regarding it not "flying" at high school or above--the play I mentioned that got the center and quarterback an appearance on Letterman was from a high school game. So clearly, it has "flown" at that level before.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Yes, Bill V, one shouldn't "cry" too much if duped by this because it is legal. They should use it as a learning opportunity. The thing that I think is so offensive about it is the "theatrics" that go into the "deception."



However, as I said earlier, deception is part of many sports and plays.



I can remember our HS soccer coach teaching us a little piece of deception on an indirect kick, used especially when the ball is near the opponents goal and things are chaotic.



As one player gets ready to take the kick, another player on the team moves in motion like he is crossing the field, then he barely touches the ball as he goes by. The player reeling back for the kick then follows through and puts it right on the goal. If it goes in, it counts, because that first "touch" serves as the first kick (pass) to another player.



I have seen some do this same play with a lot of theatrics, yelling things like "No, wait...the ball is back a little!", then the tap it back a few inches...and the other team sometimes falls for that too.



It happens in all sports...but the more theatrics there are, and the more deception, the less "sportsman like" it all appears.



TJR

 

[Fudged Undies]

There are plenty of plays like this floating around. In high school we had a play called the bounce pass. QB would skip the ball to the receiver. I recall it worked a couple of times. If the ball is moving you gotta hit somebody.

 

[Bill V]

To those of you who feel this play was inappropriate, I have another question, that I ask in full sincerity and curiosity--



Does your opinion of the play change depending on the game situation?



As we all know, athletics at this level can get pretty lopsided when it comes to skill level and competitiveness. It's not uncommon for basketball and football games at these ages to end up with scores like 73-3.



So--what if the team that did this was down by a score of, say, 60-0, part way through the fourth quarter, and then pulled this play off, to pull to within 60-7. (I have no idea of the specifics of the video--this is purely a hypothetical.) Do you still feel that doing this is outside the "spirit of competition"? Does a trick play that allows the team to have 60 seconds of elation in an otherwise demoralizing game deserve to have the opposing team, still up by over 50 points, send one of their players after the opposing coach's knee or groin, or go headhunting for the quarterback (both suggested by Travis)?



My thoughts on this hypothetical situation: If this play had been performed by a team that is up 60-0 (or that clearly has the skill advantage that it's obvious they'll have such a lead by the time the game's over), then yes, I'm in agreement that this is uncalled for--but that opinion of mine has more to do with them running up the score than their use of a trick play. But if it's by a team that is down by that score (or that is obviously overmatched and will be down by that score), I see no issues with it. And if it's in a game between two evenly matched teams, then it falls in the same category as a fake kick or a quarterback bootleg--deception is part of the game.

 

[Eric Pennal]

All good points, Bill.



I also think it's hypocritical of Travis to talk about sportsman-like conduct and playing within the spirit of the game - and then advocate taking cheap shots at the QB and the coach.

 

[mookie]

Does your opinion of the play change depending on the game situation?

Yes, mine does. Evenly matched or far behind: use it.



Certainly there is no need to do this to a team that you are trouncing.



And no retaliation is ever called for if the trick play is used.

 

[user 62394]

Bill V,



While I will agree that I wouldn't want an opposing coach whining about this being an unfair play, it is still cheap. I didn't say unfair, I said cheap. Like hitting a guy in the jewels in a fight. Yeah, its effective, and there is no rule saying you can't, but I'll call you less of a man if you do it. And that is the point here. If you can't beat a team without resorting to cheap tricks and theatrics, you deserve to lose.



And this is absolutely different than a fake kick, fake punt, or even the "statue of liberty" play that Boise State ran last year to beat Oklahoma. Those are all misdirection plays that happen when the ball clearly is in play. This is a stunt, and most athletic leagues tend to agree with me. You may recall several years back that Michigan State ran a "trick" play against Michigan. Basically, they huddled with 11 players and snuck a receiver onto the field late who was never in the huddle. Next year, the NCAA changed the rules so that wouldn't be allowed.



And no, I don't care what the score is or who does it.

 

[Bill V]

Whether the rules changed later or not have nothing to do with it. It was within the rules at the time, and therefore Michigan State deserves the credit for finding a creative way to run a play within the rules.



In the 1991 World Series, Game 7, 8th inning, with Lonnie Smith on first, Terry Pendleton doubled to the gap. Smith should have scored easily, except for one thing--Twins infielder Chuck Knoblauch faked that the play had come to him, and faked a throw to second. Smith slid into second. He quickly realized what had happened, got up, and advanced to third, but the damage was done. He didn't score on the play, was stranded there when the inning ended three batters later on a double play, and the Twins ended up winning in the tenth inning, 1-0. Cheap play by Knoblauch? Hell no! It was brilliant deception, that resulted in a World Series Championship!



In 1982, at the College World Series, the Miami Hurricanes pulled off what has come to be known as "The Grand Illusion". See the link below for the details. Cheap play by the Hurricanes? Hell no! Again, it was brilliant deception, and again, it led to a National Championship!



Plain and simple--nothing that happens within the rules of a game or sport deserves to be called "cheap". If it was that disagreeable, it would have been outlawed. If it hasn't been outlawed simply because it's so creative that the rulemakers haven't accounted for the possibility yet, then the team doing it deserves credit for having enough creativity to come up with it--not derision for doing something, just because it happens to fall outside the "ordinary" style of play.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Bill V, what if someone were to fake a serious injury (I dunno, maybe by sticking a leg of lamb shank through a tear in their pants), and say they got all theatrical about it, and fell down, and moaned, all while a play was commencing. Let's say further a bunch of the team members in on the trick helped orchestrate it by yelling, gasping, etc...



Do you think something like that might tend to disrupt the concentration of the other team, and might allow for increased yardage, or a completion, or something?



I see almost no difference between that and the "wrong ball" gag. The only addition is a prop, and you might be able to do the same type of gag (the serious fake injury gag) without a prop.



TJR

 

[user 62394]

Bill,



Neither of those instances are comparable, because, as I said in my previous posts, a "fake" within a play is a completely different thing. They are simple misdirection. Things like the "wrong ball" or hiding the ball in the first baseman's glove are different. They are basically ways to get around rules because you are not good enough to beat someone without it. And as far as I am concerned, getting around the rules is just a half step from cheating. I'd rather my kid learn how to lose well than win with a stunt like that.



Anytime someone defends something (in sports or otherwise) by saying, "What, why is that wrong, it's within the rules" they know that they have done something cheap. Sounds alot like people defending Barry Bonds with "he's never tested positive". Yeah, but a bunch of people have said they've seen him use performance enhancers, and frankly, his head has grown about 3 hat sizes.



Rocks

 

[Travis Munday]

"If you can't beat a team without resorting to ...(opinion)... trick and theatrics, you deserve to lose."



...Seriously?



What about "The Play"? When California scored in the last 4 seconds against Stanford by performing a series of laterals and then running through the band? That was certainly full of theatrics. Cal won that game because of that score. Should they not have? Should Cal receive the kick-off, roll-over, let time run out? Or should they try something radical to try to win the game?



In that game, Stanford gained the lead with a field goal with 4 seconds left, then Cal came back and scored. Obviously, both teams were evenly matched. But saying Cal deserved to lose because they shouldn't pull a theatrical or trick play is just nonsense.

 

[Travis Munday]

TJR-

That would be illegal, and not within the rules.



Ever watch soccer? Players fake getting hurt quite a lot. A few seasons ago it was a major problem. Whenever a defender would slide into a player, legally, the player with the ball would throw himself to the ground and wince in pain, hoping to draw a foul against the tackling player. It worked, at first, then the ref's cracked down. Instead of tackling players getting the foul or carded, the faking player would have a foul called upon him, or carded himself.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Tiger,



I played HS soccer for 4 years, middle-school for 2 years prior to that. I never played football in a formal team setting.



You yourself said:

...then the ref's cracked down. Instead of tackling players getting the foul or carded, the faking player would have a foul called upon him, or carded himself.

So faking an injury is an illegal move, punishable by the ref...in soccer or in football. But faking something else that not actually part of the play (yeah, subjective I guess), whether it be the "wrong ball" or anything else anyone can possibly imagine, is legal.



That seems very "convenient" to me.



What's to keep somone from getting some road-rash, or a small cut, wipe the blood on their jersey, and then while on the line say to the defense: "Hey, don't get too close, I have AIDS!" as he shows off the blood.



Again, that's probably legal...but is it RIGHT?



TJR

 

[Travis Munday]

In the soccer example, the people faking injuries weren't penalized for faking an injury, but for unsportsman like conduct. Trying to draw an unfounded penalty is illegal. The NFL has rules against this as well. No longer can centers use head bobs to trick the defense into jumping offsides. An O-lineman cannot antagonize a D-lineman into jumping offsides. If the O-lineman does, and the D-lineman jumps offsides, the penalty is called on the offense, not the defense, even though it appears as if the defense was in the wrong. Basketball has similar rules as well.



As far as the AIDS thing, who cares what is "right". Personal opinion as to what is "right" and what isn't is irrelevant, the only question is this, "do the rules allow it". If the rules allow it, then it is "right". If the rules disallow it, then it is not "right". The rule book, and the officials who uphold it, are the ones who determine what is "right" in a game and what isn't.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Tiger says:

As far as the AIDS thing, who cares what is "right". Personal opinion as to what is "right" and what isn't is irrelevant, the only question is this, "do the rules allow it". If the rules allow it, then it is "right". If the rules disallow it, then it is not "right". The rule book, and the officials who uphold it, are the ones who determine what is "right" in a game and what isn't.

And it's that attitude right there which is why organized sports, especially professional sports and professional athletes continue to lose favor with so many fans.



As others have said, the games and the people that play them should be "better", with a higher sense of sportsmanship and class, than the "well it's 'technically' not breaking the rules" mentality that is so pervasive.



Michael Vick technically wasn't breaking any rules on the field...only his morals clause at best, so he will probably return to the field after he does his time. Bonds "technically" has never been caught using performance enhancers, yet his rookie card looks like an Ethiopian, so all is good. Pete Rose "technically never bet on or against the Reds" while coaching them, so he should be allowed into the hall of fame...I can go on.



Nope, it seems that too many people have that attitude, and its killing sports, IMHO.



TJR

 

[TomT]

Michael Vick technically wasn't breaking any rules on the field...only his morals clause at best, so he will probably return to the field after he does his time.

No team would hire Vick. It would be a public relations nightmare. His career is completely over.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

TomT said:

No team would hire Vick. It would be a public relations nightmare. His career is completely over.

I suspect several would disagree with you.



We will see. There is an old saying: "There is no such thing as bad publicity!"



TJR

 

[Travis Munday]

TJR, your argument is weak, at best.



Vick is breaking the rules of the NFL. He is breaking the "personal conduct" rules they have in place and will probably be banned from the NFL. Don't forget many professional leagues have on-field rules and off-field rules.



I, as a fan of NASCAR, dislike the fact that the top-tier drivers, Nextel Cup, are allowed to race in the second-tier division, Busch. It is perfectly in favour of the rules, but I dislike the act. Many fans have no problems with seeing top-tier drivers dominate the second-tier division. I have no footing. The rules say it is "right" but I personally feel it isn't "right". Does that make it wrong of drivers to follow the rules as they see fit?



I, as a fan of football, may dislike the rules allowing ANY form of celebration, why celebrate for doing something you're paid to do? Waiters don't do dances when they hand you the food without dropping it. However, others may not have any issues with any sorts of celebration, and see them as "a part of the game". The rules of the NFL allows celebration to a certain extent, that extent being determined by the officials calling the game.



Every single fan of every single sport has their own version of how exactly their game or sport should be played. Some will disagree with some rules, wish to add more, delete some others, or do nothing at all. Just because there is an argument that a LEGAL play is not cheap does not mean the argument is for the game to be played to a lesser degree of conduct or sportsmanship. It simply means that as the rules are written, there is nothing ILLEGAL going on with the play in question.



No matter what rules are on the book, no matter how those rules are upheld by officials, fans will always cry foul or wish they were different. That is the problem. There will never be rules that will please everyone. Restrict the players or teams too much and some will cry foul, all the fun and individuality is gone. Allow some freedom for interpretation of the rules, and some will cry foul when that freedom is expressed and something out of the ordinary happens.