1st year confusion about plays in Casebook

[cdoug]

Hello all. This is my first year officiating and I have been studying hard, reading posts here and trying to glean as much knowledge as I can prior to the season starting.

I'm sure that I don't understand something and we haven't had an association meeting yet for me to ask questions, so I thought I'd turn here. The question is about two plays (2.8SitA & 7.1.6SitB) from the '08 Casebook that seem contradictory to me, even after reading the rules cited.

2.8SitA: After the ball is marked RFP for a scrimmage down: (a) B1 enters NZ to give defensive signals; or (b)...with the ball. After the RFP and the snapper places hand(s) on the ball (c) A1 or B3 break the plane of NZ; or (d)... Ruling: Encroachemnt in (a), (b), (c), & (d). Whenever a player is illegally in the NZ it is encroachment. (7-1,2) (I left out (b) & (d) since they make sense to me.)

7.1.6SitB: Snapper A1 positioned over the ball after RFP, but not placed hands on the ball yet. Either: (a) A2; or (b) B1, breaks the plane of the NZ. Both players adjust their position and get behind the NZ; or (c) A1 has a hand on the ground and then stand erect to call out a blocking assignment. Ruling: No infraction in either (a), (b) or (c). In (c) the snapper is not restricted as are other linemen after placing a hand on/near the ground.

As I said, I'm sure that I'm missing something between the two since the rulings are different but cannot figure out what it might be right now. It seems that in both cases since the RFP was sounded it should be encroachment since the players were illegally in the NZ.

Please un-confuse me.

Thanks in advance for your help in learning and understanding this better.

[Warrenkicker]

Until the snapper puts his hands on the ball neither the offense or defense can be called for encroachment just because the line up in the neutral zone.

7-1-6 Following the ready-for-play and after the snapper has placed his hand(s) on the ball, encroachment occurs if any other player breaks the plane of the neutral zone.

But the rules are different for signal calling. This is from page 87 in the Points of Emphasis. And also 7-1-5.

After the ball is ready for play for a scrimmage down, but prior to the snapper placing his or her hand(s) on the ball, it is encroachment if a defender enters the neutral zone to give defensive signals or places his or her hand(s) on the ground so that contact is made with the ball or an opponent.

So for 2.8 Sit A part a the defense has encroached due to their action of calling signals in or across the neutral zone. In part c they encroached due to the fact that the snapper had his hand on the ball. In 7.1.6 the snapper has yet to put his hand on the ball in all the situations and thus these actions are all still legal.

[cdoug]

Okay. I see it now. Thanks for the clarification.

[HLin NC]

While I understand its purpose, its the most frustrating mass of gook I've ever seen- ask three questions in one followed by three answers in one for 10 chapters.

Occasionally- I'll break the question down and copy it and then split up the answers. I found out a long time ago though that I can't read it from cover to cover. I just refer to it when a question presents itself.

Of course I hated word problems in math too.