REPLY: I give dumbref five stars for being anything but dumb! His approach to this is the most fair and level-headed I've read. In my opinion (and I've been known to have a few
), a false start should stand on its own merits. No need to mind-read what the offense's actions were 'designed' to do. Example: Team A has been punting all game on the first 'hut' with their o-line in two point stance. Now in the fourth quarter on a 4th and 1, the o-line shifts on the first 'hut' (not abruptly, just a normal shift) into a three point stance--maybe even using the Dallas shift. Three B linemen come across. What do you have? If you say a false start, how do you defend that call when the coach tells you he shifted his linemen down because he was going to fake the punt with a snap to his upback and he wanted his linemen down to get a better position to block? So the play was not 'designed to cause B to encroach' but rather as a fake punt. How do you defend your call?
That's my problem with NF 7-1-7b. It's way to subjective to officiate consistently or properly. I still feel that 7-1-7a and 7-1-7c are sufficient criteria to determine whether or not Team A has committed a false start. Team B knows that Team A may shift or may go on the second or third 'hut.' Just because the game to this point has 'conditioned' B to expect the same old scrimmage kick formation is no reason to penalize A for doing something different. If you wouldn't call it a false start on the first punt of the game, you have no business calling it a false start in the fourth quarter...IMHO.