CAN THE QUARTERBACK GO IN MOTION. WE HAD AN EXTRA POINT TRY THAT WENT LIKE THIS. THE OFFENSE LINES UP IN A WISHBONE WITH A SPLIT END. THE QB GETS BEHIND THE CENTER BUT NEVER GETS DOWN TO TAKE THE SNAP. LOOKS AT HIS SPLIT END AND YELLS HIS NAME. NO RESPONSE FROM THE SPLIT END. HE YELLS AGAIN NO RESPONSE. SO HE STARTS TO JOG OVER TOWARDS THE SPLIT END AS IF TO TALK TO HIM. AS HE DOES THE BALL IS HIKED TO THE FULLBACK WHO RUNS UP THE MIDDLE FOR THE EXTRA POINT.

Sure, A QB can go in motion.
Problem is, the play you describe is not motion. It is yet another coaching innovation of the classic "where's the tee" case book play.

This type of nonsense should be shut down immediately when recoginzed by the officials and penalized as an unsportmanlike noncontact foul.

And what is different in the play?
 

In the play described, what is wrong with the motion by the QB? Why is this different than any other motion play? QB never sets his hands into snap position, is "barking" out a call, and proceedds to "jog" (go in motion). As long as no other A player is moving, this should be perfectly legit.

How am I to interpret QB's intent when barking signals? How do I know his wide out's last name?

zeb

"Football has been and always will be a game of deception and trickery involving multiple shifts, unusual formations and creative plays. However, actions or verbiage designed to confuse the defense into believing there is problem and a snap isn't imminent is beyond the scope of sportsmanship and is illegal."

No question. Ring them up for the unsportsmanlike. QB's motion was legal, though.

Unsportsmanlike!

Yes, the motion is legal. Remember football is a game of surprise and deception.

I have to laugh. One of the local JV coaches heard or read about the "Where's the puck?" play and has been running it for 15 years. Of course, schools that have played them all know the play.

But last year following a reorganization he played a new school and guess what play he ran? And, of course, the other team was surprised.

Are you saying the play in question is legal? If so, I suggest you read 9.5.1D. Such plays are specifically outlined as illegal and are considered unsportsmanlike.

Rule book statements
 

Rule 9, Section 5, Artilce 1, D - using disconcerting acts or words prior to the snap in an attempt to interfere with A's signals or movements. Possibly an incorrect reference Bktballref?

In the play above, there is no way I will be able to enforce this rule.

I still do not see the unsportsmanlike conduct on this one......there is absolutely no way for me to know that the QB vocal signals is intended to be......

let the play go!

zeb

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll bring it up at our next meeting. Good thing I don't have that team this year.

Re: Rule book statements
 

Okay zeb, if you're going to post on these forums, you need to understand the difference in 9-5-1d and 9.5.1d. :)

9-5-1d is a rule reference. 9.5.1D is a case book reference.

Then let's look at 9.5.1d.

9.5.1 SITUATION D: From a field goal formation, potential kicker A1 yells, "Where's the tee?", A2 replies, "I'll go get it" and goes legally in motion toward his team's side-line. Ball is snapped to A1 who throws a touchdown pass to A2. Ruling: Unsportsmanlike conduct prior to snap.

Comment: Football has been and always will be a game of deception and trickery involving multiple shifts, unusual formations and creative plays. However, actions or verbiage designed to confuse the defense into believing there is problem and a snap isn't imminent is beyond the scope of sportsmanship and is illegal.

This play is directly on point with the original post. It's USC and that's the way the NF expects it to be called. If the QB does that, talks to his SE and then goes back to the huddle, then we have nothing. However, when the ball is snapped, it's obvious that the verbage is intended to deceive.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Sep 11th, 2001 at 09:41 AM]

"Rule 9, Section 5, Artilce 1, D - using disconcerting acts or words prior to the snap in an attempt to interfere with A's signals or movements. Possibly an incorrect reference Bktballref?"

How can the QB's signals interfere with his own team's signals or movements? "A" is the team putting the ball into play.

Bob

READ THE POST! 9.5.1d, not 9-5-1d. Rule book references use dashes to separate articles and sections. The case book uses dots to separate articles and sections.

ok, so in this play, where's the foul?
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by zebraman55
[B]BktBallref: thanks for the lesson! In my haste, I failed to recognize the "dots" versus "dashes". Thanks for your patience!

However, are we reading into this play? I reviewed the case book and the rule book. As an official on this play, I do not know that the QB is calling out the split ends last name. I can tell b his actions that he is attempting to get the Split Ends attention. And, is that the condition we are saying is UC? Hmmmmm........

zeb

Re: ok, so in this play, where's the foul?
 

C'mon, gimme a break. We're not reading anything into it. How often have you seen a QB run out to his wide receiver, calling him by name, and then have the ball snapped to a teammate? It doesn't have to be obvious when he's yelling out a name but it is when the ball is snapped. Read the casebook play? How do you know that A1 isn't really asking for the tee or that A2 isn't going to get it? Because the ball is snapped and A2 goes out for a pass.

Would you allow a player to feign injury, fall to the ground, have the QB go "in motion," and suddenly sprint downfield for a pass from the RB? I hope not. This play is no different.

You may not like the rule and the interpretation but you can't possibly expect me to believe that you don't see this as a planned play. Surely, you can't be that naive. :(

I totally agree with BktBallRef. Shifts, motion, and "hard-counts" and "silent counts" are part of football. Any action where it seems that the snap will not occur and then "suprise, it does" is unsportsmanlike conduct that is outside the scope of the rulebook. The casebook play makes this completely clear.

I really don't think this is just my opinion but is well supported by the casebook play.

Deception....all the way!
 

This is akin to the situation whereby a holder runs to his sideline yelling at the bench for the kicking tee. Meanwhile, the defense is thinking the play is not eminent. The offense snaps the ball, catching the defense by surprise and scoring.

Sure, some argue that B should be ready to play at the ready, but it's obvious that A was using the "need the tee" plea as a deception tactic.

It has no place in the game....and I agree with an earlier respondent. Shut it down!! Penalize for UNSP conduct. You'll get an argument from the coach of A, but you'll have preserved the integrity of the game.

All the best,

Wade
N.O., LA

Re: Re: ok, so in this play, where's the foul?
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef
[B]Thanks for the kind words, Bktbakkref! Such a kind way of having a discussion!

As long as the QB draws coverage, let em play! I did not see in the post that the QB sprinted to the wide out, only that he went in motion, Most motion is barely a jog, let alone a sprint, and to have the qb bark some word......cant say this is as the case book indicates. If the MLB mopves along with him, i got nothing.

As for Naive, sorry.....open minded might best describe it!

zeb

You know, I've typed it over and over again. Just the act of the QB running over to his wideout and yelling at him is not deceitful. It doesn't become deceitful and illegal until the ball is snapped. Then it's obvious that the verbage was meant as trickery.

It's so simple to see that the play is designed to illegally deceive the defense. It's described clearly in the rulebook and the casebook. Eveyone who has posted here seems to get it. Everyone but you. I just wonder what other rules and interpretations from the NF does an official like yourself ignore? :(

Good luck to you, sir.

RE: Quarterback in motion
 

Any official who doesn't see that this is a deception play obviously concentrates more on LETTER OF RULE, than INTENT OF RULE.

I submit that those who enforce the LETTER OF RULE find that they have more problems in a game than the vast majority of us who understand the INTENT OF RULES and enforce them thusly.

Where's the foul in a "quarterback in motion"?? If the actions that have been described in this play (over and over) don't make it readily apparent where the foul is (unsportsmanlike behavior.....orchestrated by the coach....acted out by the QB), than there's not much hope that he will every see the intent of the rule on this one.

Sorry about adding a reply this late but I had missed this thread earlier. I agree this is an illegal act as described. The problem I've always had is in the enforcement of the UC in this play and the "where's the tee?" play. Do we blow it dead and penalize before the snap? If so what do we do if the player really is looking for the tee? If we allow the play to go then the enforcement is from the succeeding spot, not acceptable. Should we just kill the play as soon as it is snapped? Any opinions? I know our state has said kill it prior to the snap.

We discussed this play last year on the McGriff board. The only way to handle it is to kill the play. Even though the ball is snapped, the foul occurred before the snap, even if it's not evident until after the snap.

Compare it to a coach who yells that you're a sorry SOB just before the ball is snapped. The USC occurs before the snap, even though the ball may be snapped before you can blow the whistle. DBF before the snap.

If you look at 9.5.1d, you'll see this under the ruling.