Quote:
Originally posted by mcrowder
What's to say he didn't? Set up in the bakcfield, I mean.
I think this is only false start if he A) crosses the NZ, or B) causes defense to react.
|
No where in the rule book are your definitions supported.
No where in the rule book is your statement supported that a requirement for a false start includes "A crossing into the neutral zone."
No where in the rule book is your statement supported that a requirement for a false start includes "only if the defense reacts."
Additionally, Case Book 7-1-7 SITUATION A concludes,
Whether or not the action by A1 draws B into the neutral zone should not be a determining factor in ruling a false start foul.
Quote:
Originally posted by mcrowder
If neither occurs, and he resets for a full second, you have nothing. Since this is true, it's not a dead ball foul, and is only a live ball fould if the ball is snapped before he resets for a second.
|
Where in the rule book does it state a player is allowed to reset in the
same position?
In other words the original play stated,
"Wide reciever takes a step forward and step back just before the snap."
This player did not "Shift" as for him to legally "Shift" he must move to a
new set position. (See Rule 2-37)
As described in the play above it sounds to me like he ended up in the exact same position he started in.
This action does not meet the requirments of a shift.
Since this
IS true, the action by the player only meets the requirments of false start.
Quote:
Originally posted by mcrowder
Jumping on Rich for not blowing this dead is just dead wrong. If you have a situation like this, ask yourself --- if he resets for a second, do I still have a foul?
If you do, you have false start, and should blow it dead. If you don't, it's not illegal until the ball is snapped, and you'd better not blow it dead at that point.
|
Assuming you are a reasonable person then you know what really happens on these types of plays. This player missed the snap count and that IS the only reason he moved. You know as well as I do that the play did not include him shifting to a new location or he would have done so. When all the arguing is over we still come back to the bottom line and that is he committed a false start.
There is no good reason to justify not shutting this play down. I am
fully aware that a player can shift to a new position on the field.
This player didn't do that! Rather, what he did do is
commit a feigned charge that simulates action at the snap. As per rule 7-1-7a this is a false start.
I believe there is nothing in any of my above statements that is not supported by rule, and by common sense!