False Start

Before the snap, both parties legally entered into a binding contract (see Dayton v. Columbus, 1920, for precedent). When offensive tackle number 64 prematurely moved, he misled the offended party and breached said contract. Furthermore, when both sides assumed their respective positions at the line of scrimmage, each party should have been able to reasonably rely on the other to engage in a good-faith third down. Five-yard penalty. Repeat third down.

Pass Interference Followed by
an Instant-Replay Challenge

The initial ruling on the field was obstruction of offensive justice. Cornerback number 21 committed the tort when he inhibited the route of wide receiver number 82. The defense team, represented by the defensive coaching staff, threw the red flag. This has sent the case to the appeals court, which is watching the play again. The defense insists that number 21 did not subvert, undermine, or otherwise impede the progress of number 82 and, furthermore, contends that the replay will show no concrete evidence of improper purpose. Decision forthcoming.

Delay of Game

This is a prima-facie case in which the offensive team is liable. The offensive team was in charge of getting the ball into play before the play clock expired. The ball was not snapped until after the play clock reached zero. Res ipsa loquitur. Five-yard penalty. Repeat second down.

Roughing the Passer

Though I initially called a roughing-the-passer penalty, I am overruling my decision. When defensive end number 97 launched his attack on the quarterback, number 7, the quarterback still had the ball. But the JumboTron clearly shows that number 97’s head turned in the direction of the cheerleaders, and number 97 was therefore unable to concentrate fully on the play. The cheerleaders prevented number 97 from knowing that the quarterback had ridded himself of the ball long before number 97 ran into him. The cheerleaders represent an attractive nuisance, and, since they are cheering for the quarterback’s team, the offense is responsible. The defendant, in this case, confusingly, the offense, knew or should have known that showcasing cheerleaders, especially in such revealing outfits (see exhibits T and A), would prove to be a reasonable risk of attraction and harm. The cheerleaders are found to be peculiarly or unusually attractive. Therefore, the criteria of an attractive nuisance have been met. As stated earlier, my decision has been overturned. Fourth down.