motion

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

First, there is an implicit assumption motion begins when the player starts and that the motion is indeed parallel or backwards. The words "at the snap" are used to signify the motion can be stopped before the snap. Example, A45 after the offense is set goes in motion toward the LOS, then stops for a full second before the snap. His motion would be legal because he terminated it and was set for a full second before the snap.

As to the rule reference 7-2-2 defines requirements for a player to be a lineman. The player in motion is not a lineman by definition as he is not facing his opponent goal (2-30-9), nor, is he truly a back as he does have a part of his body breaking the imaginary line parallel to the LOS through the waistline of the center (2-30-3).

Therefore, A's motion is illegal.

If he stopped his motion and became set for one second before the snap, he is no longer in motion; it's now just a shift. I never saw anything that said he went so far forward that he was breaking the waistline of the center. Unless he ends up in motion obviously on the line of scrimmage, this would be too technical of an interpretation and looking for trouble.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

If he stopped his motion and became set for one second before the snap, he is no longer in motion; it's now just a shift. I never saw anything that said he went so far forward that he was breaking the waistline of the center. Unless he ends up in motion obviously on the line of scrimmage, this would be too technical of an interpretation and looking for trouble.

The original post stated he was in motion toward the TE on the LOS. From that description he had to be going forward which would be illegal at the snap and the fact he was in motion on the LOS trying to block the DE lead me to believe he was moving down the line making him neither a back or a lineman.

Remember the definition for a lineman and the definition for a back. He meets neither. I think he is in no-man's land where only the player under the snapper can be legal.

Frankly, this is something you might expect to see in youth football not high school. Of course, I love youth coaches whose knowledge of the rules comes from the talking heads on network TV!

[Mregor]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

The original post stated he was in motion toward the TE on the LOS. From that description he had to be going forward which would be illegal at the snap...

No he does not have to be going forward. OP said he was a wideout. Moving towards the TE on the LOS could also mean he was moving parallel to the LOS from the wideout position towards the middle of the field and the TE. That's the way I read it along with most others judging by their replies.

[svm1010]

WR
|
|-------> TE T G C G T
*************************LOS


The original post did not indicate he paused and set after moving forward. If he had, this would clearly be illegal motion as he would then be an established lineman and would not be the required 5 yards behind the LOS at the snap. However, here how I am reading the original post. The WR, who has established himself in the backfield, steps forward (so as not to draw any kind of false start flag) and goes in motion on his side of the NZ towards the TE. This should not be terribly unusual as full backs do this frequently where they may take 2 or 3 steps forwards before they go in motion laterally.

Yes a motion can be stopped at any time and the player can re-set - Legal Shift.
Yes the motion can continue through the snap and, as long as he is not moving upfield - Legal Motion

The question in my mind is whether it is legal to be in motion on the line of scrimmage if you are established in the backfield. I can't find any rule prohibiting it or indicating a specified setback (say 1 yard off type of thing) and thus am inclined to rule it legal.

[cmathews]

Reading the OP, it was my opinion (I know that and 65 cents gets me a cup of coffee at Mcdonalds), that the "back" did not step up to the LOS. I felt by reading it that by moving in motion towards the TE he was just moving towards the center of the field, not moving forward as Ed has indicated. However I do see how the language in the OP could cause some confusion. Assuming that my interp of what the OP said is correct then we have nothing........however if what Ed says is the OP original intent then we have illegal motion as Ed has said...IE moving towards the LOS.

However this interp of the OP

WR
|
|-------> TE T G C G T
*************************LOS

adds a different dimension. It isn't illegal motion. He clearly started as a back, so he is exempt from the 5 yd requirement. I don't see anything in the rules that says that you can't be in motion on the LOS....however it is most likely that he doesn't meet the requirements of a lineman (shoulders parralel to the LOS) and he doesn't meet the requirements of a back (he is breaking the waistline of the nearest player on the LOS) so he is in no mans land and thus an illegal formation.........

edit for explanation....I see Ed already pointed this out above...sorry bout that Ed
any comments?? LOL

[Jim D]

OK, I think I got it now. It would not be illegal motion, but it would be illegal formation. 7-2-2 - The players of A who are not on their line at the snap (our back in motion does not meet the defenition of being on the line) only one may penetrate the vertical plane through the waistline of his nearest teammate who is on the line. He must have his hands in postion to receive the ball if it snapped between the snappers legs.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by svm1010

The question in my mind is whether it is legal to be in motion on the line of scrimmage if you are established in the backfield. I can't find any rule prohibiting it or indicating a specified setback (say 1 yard off type of thing) and thus am inclined to rule it legal.

The phrase "established in the backfield" is misleading you. Being "established" in the way you think does not relieve the player from satisfying the other requirements of the formation & motion rules. If as the snap begins the player is no longer completely behind the nearest line player, he's not in the backfield. He may have shifted into a line position, but not if he's still in motion!

If the offensive line is somewhat staggered in terms of their positions forward & back, it is conceivable that a player in motion laterally who had set in the backfield and motioned as above could go from a position not in the backfield to one in the backfield, depending on which lineman he was closest to at the time. This could really be a problem for a back in motion between a widely split end and a tackle. Split ends often line up in a very erect stance close to A's restraining line, while the tackle might cheat back to barely break the plane of the snapper's waist. Someone who lined up as flanker just behind the end and then motioned toward the rest of the formation could present a little challenge if you wanted to be technical. However, I think the spirit of the rules is satisfied in that team B would understand the motioning player to be an eligible receiver. Still, if team A was using the A-11 offense, maybe you would want to be technical about it!

Robert

[Mike L]

I would think the question would not be whether the "back" in motion along the line is eligible, but whether the TE he is now "covering" is ineligible.

[ajmc]

Sorry Robert, I respectfully disagree with your assessment. NF: 7.2.7 clearly suggests that it's a player's starting position that determines whether, or not, he has to meet the requirement for being 5 yards behind the line at the snap.

This concept is reinforced by the narrative in the "Points of Emphasis" regarding "Motion" where it speaks of a player who "started from a position not clearly behind the line of scrimmage and did not establish himself as a back by stopping for at least one full second".

To change from a back to a lineman a player must reset to establish that new position. The original example speaks of a player who clearly established himself as a back, and then went in motion as a back. By not re-setting (stopping for a second) he does not change his status to that of a lineman and is perfectly legal moving along his side of the scrimmage line. As long as he does not move forward, at the snap. he is legally in motion without satisfying the 5 yard requirement for a lineman to be legally in motion, because he did not establish himself as a lineman by resetting.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Mike L

I would think the question would not be whether the "back" in motion along the line is eligible, but whether the TE he is now "covering" is ineligible.

No way he could continue in motion and be "on the end of the line", because he's not in position on the line. So the TE's still the E.