Disconcerting acts or words

[tempestos]

We were having a little debate last night and I was wondering if anyone had any official interpretation material on this issue.

Rule 9-5-1d states that it is unsportsmanlike conduct for B to use "disconcerting acts or words prior to the snap in an attempt to interfere with A’s signals or movements."

My question is what is considered a "disconcerting act" as opposed to "word." Can it encompass physical acts meant to draw the offense into a false start (e.g., running at the line and stopping before the neutral zone), or is it limited to cadence issues.

As a follow-up to this question, is there ever a foul against B for acting in a manner meant to draw A players into a false start?

[BulldogMcC]

I have no idea what 'act' could be disconcerting, if a LB is trying to time his blitz he runs the risk of encroaching, if he goes on the first hut and stops while not entering the NZ I have nothing. Since B cannot enter the NZ, they cannot interfer with A's movements so I think this rule only has teeth on words. (Oh, I just thought of loud clapping of hands or smacking pads meant to hinder A's cadence). I cannot recall the last time I saw a flag for this section of USC. A good U will preventive officiate this so a flag is not necessary.

[MJT]

Originally posted by tempestos
We were having a little debate last night and I was wondering if anyone had any official interpretation material on this issue.

Rule 9-5-1d states that it is unsportsmanlike conduct for B to use "disconcerting acts or words prior to the snap in an attempt to interfere with A’s signals or movements."

My question is what is considered a "disconcerting act" as opposed to "word." Can it encompass physical acts meant to draw the offense into a false start (e.g., running at the line and stopping before the neutral zone), or is it limited to cadence issues.

As a follow-up to this question, is there ever a foul against B for acting in a manner meant to draw A players into a false start?

The NFL and NCAA has rules regarding the defense causing the offense to move, with special guidelines on where the defender is and who on the offense moves, but the NF does not. Therefore the defense cannot cause the offense to foul by faking a blitz.

[Theisey]

How about this... and I just made it up.

Defensive LB pulls off his towel or wrist band and tosses it into the NZ causing team-A to pickup.

Could that be construed as a "D-act"?

[don't move]

This happened in the finals of the 4A state championship several years ago. 4th and 2 for A who has decided to go for it. Just before the snap, ALL of Bs defensive line 'flopped' down to the ground, flat on their stomaches, without breaking the plane. At least 3 A linemen jumped. After a long discussion, A was called for a false start. Our state commissioner, who is also on the NF rules committee, said, and I agree, that this was a disconcerting act, which was intended to interfere with the movement of A. This should have been a foul on B.
As a referee, I would be peeved if the coach didn't tell me about that play in the pre-game, because it certainly had to have been rehersed.

[tempestos]

"Acts" as opposed to "words" has to mean something.

Although the NFL (and I suppose NCAA) has a "delay of game" foul for the defense causing the offense to jump, they do NOT have the "disconcerting acts" language in their unsportsmanlike rule (they only have "disconcerting words"). Therefore, it seems like including "acts" in 9-5-1 may be an attempt to somehow incorporate that rule, but do so more harshly with a 15 yard penalty as opposed to a 5 yard delay penalty.

In the end, if the defense is out there trying to get the offense to jump, is that really in the spirit of the game? It seems like it should be an unsportsmanlike penalty to me.

[GBFBUmp]

Originally posted by tempestos
"Acts" as opposed to "words" has to mean something.

Maybe and maybe not. In a Frosh game a couple weeks ago, I was in my normal position at ump. One of the LBs on home team would occasionally change his D call with a loud yell of 'right' or 'left'. Coach of visitors felt it was a disconcerting act and asked for a flag on 3 occasions. He thought the intent was to alter the cadence, so the words didn't matter, but the act of calling the D was the disconcerting act. It sure didn't seem intentional, and I watched carefully, but in the few plays that it happened, none of them matched up with cadence so I never had a problem with it.

[Forksref]

Originally posted by Theisey
How about this... and I just made it up.

Defensive LB pulls off his towel or wrist band and tosses it into the NZ causing team-A to pickup.

Could that be construed as a "D-act"?

I am going to make up my answer. I'd blow it dead, my umpire picks it up and we have delay of game. Keep the towel in your pants!

[ljudge]

What if the entire sideline tries to disrupt the offense? We had a varsity game last night (ppd due to rain from Friday) where all the fans sat on one side of the field in a huge stadium where there are no bleachers on the visiting side.

When the home team was calling the cadence the defensive players didn't say anything and weren't interfering with the signals. But, the entire visiting sideline of players (technically substitues) were all yelling as if to give "crowd noise" in hopes of disrupting the offense. I'm not talking about the typical "defense, defense,..." that we always hear but it was kind of like yelling like fans do at NFL games.

I got nothing and we let it go the whole night. We discussed this and said "they are non-players just like fans are." The only thing I said if we hear "hut, hut, hut" or something like that to attempt to cause a false start then we need to consider a USC (which they didn't do).

It just kind of caught me off guard because I have never seen a team on the sideline do this.

[tempestos]

ljudge, I agree with your no-call. That is just noise from the sidelines. I see nothing specifically designed to draw the offense into a false start in your scenario.