QUARTERBACK IN MOTION

[CHAMPSFST]

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.

[Theisey]

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.

[zebraman55]

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

[BktBallRef]

"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."

[Zeke5]

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

[Ed Hickland]

Originally posted by Zeke5
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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Ed Hickland

Unsportsmanlike!

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

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.

[zebraman55]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
[
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. [/B]

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

[Ed Hickland]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

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.

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

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by zebraman55

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?

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.

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......

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]

[bluezebra]

"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

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by bluezebra
"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.

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.

[zebraman55]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by zebraman55
[B]

Originally posted by BktBallRef


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.

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]

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

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by zebraman55

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........

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.

[mikesears]

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.