Wide reciever takes a step forward and step back just before the snap. Why would this be illegal motion and not false start? Live ball foul verses dead ball foul?

Did his step simulate the snap or did he enter the neutral zone? If so you have false start, dead ball foul.

Otherwise you have nothing assuming everyone was set for 1 second before the wide reciever went into motion.

His step simulated the snap. I would have called false start, dead ball foul but the linesman through a live-ball foul. I though maybe this was a college rule verses NFHS rule.

If his step crossed the neutral zone, then it's an encroachment foul. If not, then did it simulate action at the snap?

Since an end can reset and can move and isn't restricted as is an interior lineman, I'm more willing to judge the foul based on whether it drew a defender into thinking it was the start of a play.

If not, I'll throw a live ball IM foul.

I agree with Rich. First thing I'd consider is whether he entered the neutral zone. If so, we have encroachment. Secondly, was he set for a full second. If not, we have motion. Thirdly, if his motion (simulating the motion at the snap), we have a false start.

Keep in mind the backs and ends can reset if they get reset for a full second, if not, then we have a live-ball motion foul.

REPLY: Technically, in Federation football if any player moves and resets but does not set for a second prior to the snap, the foul is an illegal shift. The only way illegal motion is possible is if a player is moving forward at the snap or if more than one player is moving at the snap. IMHO, if any team A player makes any movement that even remotely simulates action at the snap, I would shut it down as a dead ball false start. Nothing good can come from letting such a play go off with a pending live ball shift/motion foul.

Except a potential turnover. I prefer to think of it the other way -- nothing bad could possibly happen to the team that DIDN'T foul, so why not leave it live? Maybe there'll be an interception or something that benefits the defense and they can DECLINE the live ball foul.

--Rich

FALSE START
 

This <u>IS</u> a FALSE START.
We have all seen this type of play many times and the situation is very simple, <b> the player involved missed the count and thus he committed a FALSE START</b>
Bob M is correct, nothing good can come from allowing this play to continue, so,
<b>SHUT IT DOWN </b>and enforce exactly what it is, a <b>FALSE START.</b>

Re: FALSE START
 

I disagree.

I respectfully disagree!
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

Quote:

Except a potential turnover. I prefer to think of it the other way -- nothing bad could possibly happen to the team that DIDN'T foul, so why not leave it live? Maybe there'll be an interception or something that benefits the defense and they can DECLINE the live ball foul. --Rich

Rich-
By allowing team A to foul and then let the play continue you are allowing many more potential problems than allowing B a free play as you suggest.
What happens when you allow the above play to continue and you have a defensive foul such as roughing the passer, defensive pass interference, or a personal foul (against the defense).
Something bad happened now Rich!!!
YOU can't enforce the defensive foul because <u>YOU have allowed B the opportunity for a FREE FOUL!</u> <b>
YOU</b> created the situation, Rich, and now there is nothing YOU can do about it because all YOU have is a double foul!
As you stated above <i>"nothing bad can happen to the team that did not foul".</i> <b>
Thats absolutly true!</b> And, by using that type of thinking, YOU are allowing B the opportunity to foul for free. (aka, get in a cheap shot!)
Shut it down Rich! Properly enforce the actual foul that was committed, (7-1-7a) a <b>FALSE START.</b>
Again, nothing good can happen by allowing the play to continue.


[Edited by KWH on Oct 4th, 2004 at 05:42 PM]

Maybe I missed something here judging by the posting. But didn't the receiver step forward? . For his motion to be legal it would have to be backward away from the line or he would have had to establish a backfield position.

Blow it dead for a false start.

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. 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.

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.

Round and round and round we go...
 

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, <b>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.</b>
Where in the rule book does it state a player is allowed to reset in the <b>same</b> position?
In other words the original play stated,<i> "Wide reciever takes a step forward and step back just before the snap."</i>
This player did not "Shift" as for him to legally "Shift" he must move to a <b>new</b> 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. <u>This action does not meet the requirments of a shift.</u>
Since this <b>IS</b> true, the action by the player only meets the requirments of false start.



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 <b>fully aware</b> that a player can shift to a new position on the field. <b>This player didn't do that!</b> Rather, what he did do is<b> commit a feigned charge that simulates action at the snap.</b> 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!

As we all know you have to be there. But, from the posting, the fact he moved forward although he stepped back sounds like he missed the snap count, otherwise, why make that move? (To try and draw the defense and that is illegal)

Of course, if your coaches are like my coaches, they are probably singing their popular hit recording "He moved!" i unison.

Just the way I rule on it
 

If a player set up in the back field moves forward he had better go into motion. If he moves forward and just stops or then goes back to his original position then I have a false start. Legal shifts not included. Now if the guy is lined up on the LOS and he moves forward he will get a flag. I don't care what the defense does on this kind of play. We had a play where the ball was snapped absolutely nobody moved. You would expect the defense to move after a snap. So just because the defense doesn't move after an offensive player "false starts" doesn't keep it from being a foul.