Chaos and Confusion: USC’s Illegal Fake Punt Sparks Debate Across College Football

College football fans witnessed one of the most confusing moments of the season Friday night when USC attempted a fake punt that initially appeared to work—but later turned out to be illegal. The Trojans lined up for a punt and brought in third-string quarterback Sam Huard, who ran the play disguised as punter Sam Johnson. The catch? Both players were wearing the same jersey number — No. 80.

The play unfolded so quickly that neither the officiating crew nor the broadcast crew recognized anything unusual in real time. USC converted the fake punt, keeping their drive alive, but questions immediately surfaced online and from analysts. Was the play even legal?

It didn’t take long for rules experts to weigh in. Former NFL referee Mike Pereira called the play “clearly illegal,” pointing to NCAA uniform regulations and substitution protocol. His view was echoed by Terry McAulay, another former referee who became one of the most vocal critics of USC’s maneuver on social media.

McAulay agreed with the Big Ten’s eventual ruling that the play should have drawn a 15-yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty, saying the Trojans’ decision to use two players with identical numbers violated both the spirit and the letter of the rulebook.

1. Officials and Analysts Dissect the Play

Terry McAulay didn’t mince words in defending the Big Ten’s call. Responding to USC fans who argued the play was technically a deep shotgun pass rather than a punt, McAulay pushed back sharply, noting that intent doesn’t override positioning and formation rules. “I get a lot of hardcore fans twisting themselves in knots defending their team,” McAulay wrote. “But those trying to explain that USC #80 was not a player in the position of a punter has been something to behold. At best they are being incredibly pedantic. At worst, intentionally daft.” He further clarified his stance by posting several photos comparing legal punting formations, showing that there was no reasonable interpretation under which USC’s alignment could be considered legitimate. His tone reflected both frustration and disbelief at how such a basic oversight could occur at a major football program. The Big Ten later confirmed McAulay’s position, stating that USC’s trick play should have been flagged immediately. According to their review, the error stemmed from confusion caused by both the identical jersey numbers and the unconventional formation, which made it difficult for the officiating crew to identify the substitution violation in real time.

2. Roster Confusion and Accountability

Part of the chaos stemmed from USC’s roster setup. Both Huard and Johnson were listed as No. 80 on the Trojans’ official game-day sheet — an oversight that would normally go unnoticed because players with identical numbers usually appear on opposite sides of the ball. However, in this case, both were involved in the same special teams play, creating a direct violation of NCAA rules. To make matters worse, USC’s uniforms do not feature player names on the back, which made it even harder for officials to distinguish between the two during the live action. After the game, several fans and analysts suggested that the lack of jersey names may have contributed to the officials missing the infraction entirely. Northwestern head coach David Braun, whose team was on the receiving end of the fake punt, accepted responsibility for not catching it earlier. “USC did legally submit that,” Braun said. “It 100 percent falls on me.” His acknowledgment, however, did not change the Big Ten’s view that the play violated NCAA guidelines. The league cited the “Unfair Tactics” section of the rulebook, which stipulates that deceptive substitutions or identical-number violations warrant a 15-yard team unsportsmanlike conduct penalty. The conference said it would continue reviewing the situation with both programs to determine whether further clarification or discipline was necessary.

3. A Strange Moment with Lingering Impact

While the illegal fake punt did not directly change the outcome of the game, the play has sparked a wider discussion across college football about rule enforcement and game-day oversight. Analysts have pointed out that in a sport as fast-moving as football, even small administrative lapses can create major controversy when left unchecked. The Big Ten’s review also highlighted how difficult it can be for referees to monitor every detail in real time — especially when trick plays push the boundaries of legality. Some former officials have called for stricter pregame roster checks to prevent such situations from happening again. For USC, the episode serves as a cautionary tale. While creative play-calling has long been part of football’s allure, this particular gamble crossed a clear regulatory line. The Trojans’ coaching staff will likely face internal discussions about how the mix-up occurred and what safeguards can be added moving forward. As the story continues to circulate, it stands as one of the more unusual moments in recent college football memory — a reminder that even in a game of split-second decisions, attention to detail remains everything.