Hello all. This is my first year officiating and I have been studying hard, reading posts here and trying to glean as much knowledge as I can prior to the season starting.
I'm sure that I don't understand something and we haven't had an association meeting yet for me to ask questions, so I thought I'd turn here. The question is about two plays (2.8SitA & 7.1.6SitB) from the '08 Casebook that seem contradictory to me, even after reading the rules cited.
2.8SitA: After the ball is marked RFP for a scrimmage down: (a) B1 enters NZ to give defensive signals; or (b)...with the ball. After the RFP and the snapper places hand(s) on the ball (c) A1 or B3 break the plane of NZ; or (d)...
Ruling: Encroachemnt in (a), (b), (c), & (d). Whenever a player is illegally in the NZ it is encroachment. (7-1,2) (I left out (b) & (d) since they make sense to me.)
7.1.6SitB: Snapper A1 positioned over the ball after RFP, but not placed hands on the ball yet. Either: (a) A2; or (b) B1, breaks the plane of the NZ. Both players adjust their position and get behind the NZ; or (c) A1 has a hand on the ground and then stand erect to call out a blocking assignment.
Ruling: No infraction in either (a), (b) or (c). In (c) the snapper is not restricted as are other linemen after placing a hand on/near the ground.
As I said, I'm sure that I'm missing something between the two since the rulings are different but cannot figure out what it might be right now.
It seems that in both cases since the RFP was sounded it should be encroachment since the players were illegally in the NZ.
Please un-confuse me.
Thanks in advance for your help in learning and understanding this better.