Quote:
Originally Posted by Reffing Rev.
I always say, when in doubt between shift/motion and false start: kill it as a philosophy.
|
I've seen a lot of teams where that would kill their entire shift & motion strategy, and cause them to lose some of the edge they have from knowing the snap count. I'll explain one common strategy like that:
There are teams that may line up as team A for scrimmage with one or both halfbacks in either the usual halfback or wingback positions. They commonly start a wingback in motion toward the halfback position and then snap & toss the ball to him. Team B seeing this may try to time their defensive charge by inferring the ball is to be snapped when the halfback is at that place in the motion. To keep them from being able to rely on that inference, team A may have the wingback stop at the halfback position, and continue their snap count. But then team B can infer that the ball will be snapped when the other halfback moves similarly. To keep team B from relying on that inference, team A starts the first wingback in motion and, before completing that shift, has the other wingback also begin such a shift. The idea is to take away the possible keys to team B as to both the direction of the play and the timing of the snap, by having 0, 1, or 2 players in the backfield moving pre-snap.
If you say this is simulating action at the snap, you may be correct, but if this is the type of simulating of action at the snap that the rules are designed to preclude, then in effect you're saying the rules forbid team A from having any advantage from knowing -- and hence from having -- the snap count. You might as well say team A has to announce to team B when they're snapping the ball.