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

Difference among NCAA/High School officials
 

My assignor mentioned to me that he's noticed that the college officials in our high school unit tend to apply false start standards to backs and receivers, rather than just to linemen. The purely high school officials tend to be the ones that interpret the rule to apply only to the linemen. Is this what you see as well?

Well that makes sense. But I have never been given that directive and personally I think that is a bad logic. The wings can see this as well as the Referee and even better than the Referee. What do you do if the Referee clearly misses this? Do you let them live and die with that call?

Peace

REPLY: I realize that some may disagree with this, but the "he-can-reset" argument is really old-world thinking. If he jumps as if to start the play, it's a false start--period. Motion requires a smooth, non-abrupt movement. As MJT said, you know when a player is going in motion. Here's my guideline: If the player's movement makes me jump to begin watching for post-snap action, it's a false start and deserves a flag.

Yup, that's exactly how I see it.

And I don't care if I (the WH) or a wing gets it.

I would let the back reset in most cases. If a back makes a sudden step towards the line and then goes in motion, most officials will let that go. If a back makes a sudden step toward the line and resets, the same group of officials will tend to flag it. Since the first step is the same, I'd treat them the same.

REPLY: Jim...would you treat these differently if the defense responded and crossed into the neutral zone?

We can talk about this until we are blue in the face. The reality is this is a judgment call all the way. I know I have a philosophy for the backs and receivers different than I do for the lineman. It really is that simple.

Peace

Yes I would flag A for a false start if B jumped. A's action obviously simulated the start of the play in this case and they get the penalty. Now I know where you're going with this - if B doesn't jump the action is the same so why treat it differently? Answer - No. 1, If they don't jump then no harm, no foul. No. 2, even though A can reset, they messed up by jumping so they get the penalty if one has to be called.

I tell my wings to concentrate on the 12+ guys on the line. I'll take care of the 3 or 4 backs.

You can tell them whatever you like. Football officiating is a community effort. Do you tell a wing not to call holding and only watch the ball carrier too? And how is a wing not going to concentrate on players that are possibly their keys? So many things are wrong with that statement.

Peace

REPLY: Basically what I've seen is that throughout the NCAA and definitely in the NFL, they have gotten to a point where there is consistency in calling a false start based solely on the Team A player's action -- whether it is a lineman, back, WR. All are held to the same standards for pre-snap movement. There is no distinction made. It does appear that it is only in HS and below that we have this inconsistency on how the false start rules are applied.

Bob, I think the problem is at the HS level we do not have an assigner or anyone else telling us "we want it called as a FS in all of those cases." Our NCAA assigner has told us to call FS every time in those situations. I know they are told the same in the NFL. This is a ruling in which I don't know why we would call it any other way in NF ball.

In an NFL training tape I have the supervisor says on the voice over, "this play should have shut down and never happened" on a play where a back moved early and a interception was thrown. He said the offense was penalized cuz the official didn't call a FS when he should have. He continues to say, "nothing good can happen when we don't call a FS in these situations."

We have a saying, "Watch players, not the ball." Therefore, not often do we watch the runner, prior to imminent contact. And, I've never had a back as a key for anyone. Our keys are on the line. I can't think of any of the 5 positions which uses a back as a key.

I've never told anyone not to call holding. :) And, if a wing calls a FS on a back, I can accept that, but I will ask if they are watching their keys on the line.

The BJ can certainly key on a back. If a wing or a flanker is positioned outside of the tight end on the strong side, they certainly key on a back. Also, the LJ may key on a back to his side if the BJ is keying on the widest end. For example, a balanced formation with two split ends and two slots. The BJ has the split end and the LJ has the slot.

Can you clarify what you mean? As I understand it, keys are for initial pass coverage only. Until the ball is snapped, you aren't using your keys anyways. Once the offense is set, I determine my keys, then continue with my progression. I look for FS's, shifts, and motion. If I have the motion man, how do I keep watching my keys?

Mechanics vary from one place to another. I am saying that depending on the formation, the wings have a receiver right in front of them and their key is not just the line. The key is what you watch or observe at the snap. It just makes since that the wings will be watching backs on an occasion. Also the wings are not always able to see the entire line. That is what the R and U should be doing. To each his own and if that is the philosophy you use, I just think it does not make sense. If the officials are watching a particular area, why would you take their judgment away? I just do not think it makes any sense to be so territorial in officiating when you have officials in position to make calls.

Why does it have to be an either/or watching? The wings need to see the movement of eligible receivers to know whether they have certain penalties. If they are only concentrating on the line, they might miss obvious fouls on other areas in the game. It just does not make any sense.

Peace

I define a back as inside the tackles and off the line. A receiver outside the tackles and off the line is the responsibility of the wings. I don't want wings looking into the backfield, prior to or after the snap. Wings have the following responsibilities: "snap-tackle-end" which means look for action prior to the snap, read the tackle for pass/run and look for the block on the end to make sure it is clean. Then, they either go downfield for a pass situation or stay home and watch blockers in front of the ball as the play comes to them.

Bob, I think the "inconsistency" is built into the rules. Linemen have restrictions that backs do not have. Since there are different rules on what A players may do based on their position, there will be different treatment. I don't think it's incosistancy so much as judgement. If a lineman lifts up, by rule it's a false start. If a back lifts up, it's a judgement call as to whether it's a false start or not.

Unless your state or area uses a completely different set of keys, that is not true. A wing's key might be the back between the tackles.

Then, they either go downfield for a pass situation or stay home and watch blockers in front of the ball as the play comes to them.

The wings also have short passes in the flat. They do not go running reckless abandon down field on every pass. Usually the running backs are going to the short flat for passes. You will have to pick them up to know where they are. And their movement before the snap is key. Now if they are not looking at them, they might miss a play that involves them. Wings also have some responsibility for the forward/backward pass coverage.

We are not going to agree on this. Unless your state has completely different mechanics, nothing you are saying about keys and coverage area that is true.

Peace

REPLY: I'll definitely agree that interior linemen locked into a 3/4-point stance have more restrictions on them in that they can't lift out of that stance no matter how slowly or smoothly they do it, whereas an end or a back can do so. But when a player jumps because he obviously missed the snap count and that jump simulates the start of a play, he has committed a false start regardless of position. There is no ambiguity in the rules on that...at least not as I read them. Is there judgment involved? Of course there is, but not a whole lot for a player that flinches or jumps simply because he missed the count.

Sometimes they flinch because they were supposed to move and go into motion. This is why I personally like to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Peace

You are giving the Offense a huge advantage. If he doesn't know the play, then why would you bail him out. It's not our job to give the benefit of the doubt.

How are you giving the offense and advantage? The offense could throw an interception (with all that confusion) or make another mistake. You still can have a penalty; it is just a matter of which penalty you are going to call.

Let me say this, I have taken this philosophy with me for years and I have never had anyone really make a big deal out of it. Also we give the benefit of the doubt on a lot of plays to not award cheap penalties or to not award points that might not be earned.

Once again, if it works for you do it. I am just not a mind reader to know when and why players always move. This is why this is a judgment call no matter how many ways we dissect it.

Peace

That's why they have PRACTICE! PRACTICE?? To get the plays right. If he doesn't know the plays, he shoulddn't be in there.

I'm not giving the offense a huge advantage - the offense already has that huge advantage given to it by the rules. It can move all sorts of people in different directions and start and stop their movements.

A back is allowed to move and then reset as long as he does commit a false start, it isn't illegal motion or an illegal shift. Whether his movement is a false start or not is a judgment call. As you can see from this discussion there is a lot of disagreement on this and there has been as long as I've been officiating.

I don't think you can claim one view is right and the other is wrong in this type of play. Sometimes it's a FS and sometimes it isn't.

What does any of that have to do with the rule? A player not knowing a play is not a penalty. If the rules committee wants a penalty for all offensive movements, then they will outlaw it by rule. Until that time, there is some judgment, experience, common sense and philosophy that are going to apply. That is not going to change because you disagree with me on this. Judgment is after all why we get paid the big bucks.

Peace

JimD & JRutledge,

I understand what you guys are saying. Maybe its the wording I dont agree with. Yes, FS is a judgement call. BIG BUCKS!!! I'm in the wrong state. ha ha!!