NFHS: false start?
 

I've been having a discussion with a few officials I work with about false starts. I contend that if a back misses the snap count and jumps early, it is a dead ball false start. They say that the back can reset. If he does so legally before the snap, or goes in motion legally, then there is no problem. If he does not get set or go legally in motion, what we have is a live ball foul for illegal motion.

The rule book is somewhat vague on the matter:
Rule 7-1-7

ART. 7 . . . After the ball is marked ready for play and before the snap begins, no false start shall be made by any A player. It is a false start if:

a. A shift or feigned charge simulates action at the snap.
b. Any act is clearly intended to cause B to encroach.
c. Any A player on his line between the snapper and the player on the end of his line, after having placed a hand(s) on or near the ground, moves his hand(s) or makes any quick movement.

The case book does not address the matter.

The Redding Study Guide to NFHS Football Rules states, "A back who jumps the snap count and lifts up from his position has most likely committed a false start. However, there is no general agreement among officials about what constitutes a false start by a back or split end." (Demetriou, 2007)

I believe that missing the count is a shift that simulates action at the snap.

What do you think?

I had one game (JV) where I flagged it 2 or 3 times, but got hell from my WH every time I did. I'd be interested to see if it was just a pet peeve of his, or if there's a broader consensus.

This quote sums it up and I doubt that you'll find a consensus here. Concerning backs and receivers, a lot of people have the attitude "No Harm/No Foul".

If his movement simulates action at the snap, it's a false start. Those that claim "no harm/no foul" can say what they want. The rule is clear.

I agree with you. Unfortunately, my current WH doesn't.

You're on the wrong crew, then :)

I'm a WH and it's a flag, everytime. Most times the back doesn't reset and we then end up with an illegal motion penalty. I'd rather just shut it down. The rule *is* clear.

If the back moves as you say, and draws the defense over the line, then you have a false start on the offense. Otherwise, you have a man in motion, as long as he isn't moving toward his line of scrimage, and there isn't another A player also in motion.

JimO.

I agree with this, also! Not much I can do about it for this season, but there's always next year.

This is one of those: "That's not how they called that last week," type of fouls. One crew says false start, the next says he reset, no foul. I let it go unless it draws the defense offside. This is also a time when you might have an illegal shift if one person is in motion and a back twitches.

I also feel that we need to give more leeway to the backs and receivers because they can legally move to get to another position. Those players get my benefit of the doubt especially when there is no movement by the defense. I am not going to be so quick to call a false start in these situations.

Peace

I'm a white hat and you know when he is going in motion or missed the snap count. When it is obvious he has missed the snap count, I have a flag and rarely have had a coach disagree. If he says "he can reset" I say, "coach, if he misses the snap count, it is a FS" and he usually says nothing else. In college, we have been told specifically to call it a FS, and I know they do the same in the NFL.

I've already flagged it this season. I can tell the difference between missing the count and a shift. And I think this is the WH's call, not a wing.

I completely disagree with that last statement. Of course a wing can call this; they might have the best look or knowledge of the movement. If they move sideways the wing probably knows this better than the Referee.

Peace

When in Rome........
 

As a wingman for 14 years I've learned to leave the backs to R unless they actually go in motion. I've had my @$$ crawled once too often for flagging that missed snap count by the up back:confused:

I know it meets the definition of FS but if the "boss" wants it, he can have it.

Think of it this way: If the player thought the snap was to have been on an earlier count, that player is doing what the player is supposed to do at the snap. So how could it not simulate action at the snap?

Robert