Back me up here guys
 

Had a seemingly straightforward play last night in a JV game:

A82 is split wide to my Linesman's side (I'm the LJ). A82 is set as a back. He then goes in motion, up to the LOS and then parallel toward the TE, then the ball is snapped.

Linesman has a flag for illegal motion.

I cannot get it through the L or the U's head that this is perfectly legal. The bottom line is, there are no restrictions on motion for a back other than he not be moving toward his line at the snap, correct. They are hung up on the fact that he is in motion on his LOS. This restriction only applies to a player who went in motion from a position on his line, who would have to be 5 yards deep at the snap, correct?

That was legal. I've never seen it though.

Alright. I'll play devil's advocate here.

Originally this player, A82, was lined up as a back. We all agree about this. Then he went in legal motion and when the ball was snapped he was not in motion toward his opponent's goal line. We all agree about this. So this does meet all of the requirements of legal motion.

7-2-7 Only one A player may be in motion at the snap and then only if such motion is not toward his opponent’s goal line. Except for the player under the snapper, as outlined in Article 3, the player in motion shall be at least 5 yards behind his line of scrimmage at the snap if he started from any position not clearly behind the line and did not establish himself as a back by stopping for at least one full second while no part of his body is breaking the vertical plane through the waistline of his nearest teammate who is on the line of scrimmage.

However what is this player now. Is he a back or a lineman as these are the only two things he can legally be?

7-2-3 Of the players of A who are not on their line at the snap only one may penetrate the vertical plane through the waistline of his nearest teammate who is on his line. He must have his hands in position to receive the ball if it is snapped between the snapper’s legs but he is not required to receive the snap. Any other player(s) must be in legal position as a back. (See 2-31-3)

2-24-2 An offensive player is on his line of scrimmage when he complies with the position requirements of a lineman.

2-31-3 A back is any A player who has no part of his body breaking the plane of an imaginary line drawn parallel to the line of scrimmage through the waist of the nearest teammate who is legally on the line, except for the player under the snapper, who is also considered a back.

2-31-9 A lineman is any A player who is facing his opponent’s goal line with the line of his shoulders approximately parallel thereto and with his head or foot breaking an imaginary plane drawn parallel to the line of scrimmage through the waist of the snapper when the ball is snapped.

So I say he is not a lineman if his shoulders are not parallel to the goal line and he is breaking the snappers waist. I also say that he is not a back because he breaking the imaginary line through his nearest teammate who is legally on the line and is not under the snapper. So this guy is in no-man's land and creates an illegal formation.

Why would illegal formation be an incorrect call?

Very good point, Warren. I hadn't thought of it that way. Also, what would this player do to the eligibility of the player who was on the end of the line before the motion man started down the line?

Another good question.

I never thought of it that way warrenkicker. Most teams do not go in motion that way, most go straight from where they are as a back.

Jim, if he is not a linemen or back, then I would say he is not "covering up" someone else and making them ineligible.

This is a tough call because it falls in those areas that the rules makers probably weren't really considering when they wrote the rules. Since the motion man at the snap isn't a back anymore by rule and he isn't a lineman, it should be an illegal formation but not illegal motion. The eligibility issue is not as clear so I'd just flag the illegal formation and leave it at that. This will be a tough call to sell.

I had thought of that as well but didn't want to confuse things with that statement. If this player is not considered a lineman then he has not changed the eligibility of the end which may be inside of his position. However if he is in motion with his shoulders parallel to the goal line then he may meet the requirements of a lineman and now will change the eligibility of the end if he is inside of his position. However, can the player be in motion, be a lineman, and not be on the end of his line? I suppose he could. One of the wings had better be watching for ineligible down field during that one as the man in motion will be under the wing's keys.

Illegal motion. Since the player was a lineman at the time he went in motion his staus does not change unless he becomes set in the backfield. By rule as a lineman he must be five yards behind the line at the snap [This is an artifact of the days when a player could enter the free blocking zone and block below the waist.]

NFHS rules prohibit a player form being in motion on the LOS.

If the lineman had stepped off the line and became set for one second his status chages and his flexibility for being in motion increases.

I never understood that to be the case. As I've read 7-2-7, all I've gathered is that if a player started on the LOS, then they shall be at least 5 yards behind the LOS at the snap. It only prohibits a player that starts on the LOS from being in motion on the LOS.

The phrase "...the player in motion shall be at least 5 yards behind his line of scrimmage at the snap if he started from any position not clearly behind the line and did not establish himself as a back..." is silent if the player starts as a back.

Since this player started as a back, the 5 yard restriction seems to be moot.

If A2 moves towards the LOS, then sidesteps in motion with his shoulders roughly parallel to the LOS, it seems he is a lineman. As such, the motion seems legal to me (if sidestepping). Of course eligibility may change, but I see nothing wrong with the side-step approach.

warrenkicker, I agree. He's on the line breaking the snapper's waist plane so he's supposed to have his shoulders parallel, doesn't, therefore illegal formation.