Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JasonTX
When two players are moving the defense does not think the snap is about to happen because they know the ball cannot be snapped while there is a shift. For the motion, they know the ball can be snapped if a player is in motion are are prepared for it. Here's a link to the final plays of the Boise game. Once it gets to the motion play look at the snap and the direction of the motion. It is a bang bang play with his motion and the snap.
|
I don' t buy it. How about the OU defender who sees the QB moving toward the LOS and is waiting for him to reset because he knows he can't be moving forward at the snap?
What has bang bang got to do with whether you flag an infraction or not?
Quote:
|
Another side of this type of motion is I have seen this as being under the philosophy of a "talk to first" before flagging it when the play goes the other way. If that is the case then I believe you'd have to adhere to that philosphy in this play as well.
|
It's 4th down in overtime and you're still warning players?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TXMike
I ask all of you who are saying the flag should have been tossed on the BSU play to just tell me what advantage BSU got or what disadvantage OU was put at due to the QB's motion.
In the case of an illegal shift, defenses have to be given time to adjust after a shift. That was put in the rule book years ago when coaches were using shifts to put defenses at big disadvantages. After the change requiring all be motionless for a second, defense had time to react during and after the shift to get better positioned to deal with what was coming. We do not know what adjustments the defense might have made during and following the illegal shift had then been given sufficient time, hence the flag.
|
You can't tell me that if the OU TE had reset one half second earlier, it would have made any difference whasoever. That's far fetched, Mike.