motion
 

NHFS Play, A lines up at wide out as a back,he sets for 2 sec. he then takes one step forward and goes in motion toward the tight end on the LOS.This is to block the DE.Where does it state that this is a foul or is it? I cked ART.7 not much help.

Ok...I don't have my rulebooks with me, but I'll give it a shot.

If he steps up and is now on the line, that would make 8 on the line and that is legal. Now if he goes in motion towards the TE, this would be illegal motion when the ball is snapped because he became an end when he moved up.

If he's still in the backfield after his step up and is angling forward towards the TE with his motion, it would also be illegal motion at the snap.

In both cases, 5 yards from the previous spot if accepted by B.

Scott

7-2-7. (summary) player in motion must be at least 5 yards behind the LOS at the snap. (other than the QB which is covered under an exception)

Personal interpretation....I think you have a foul at the snap fo Illegal Motion since he is not 5 yards deep at the snap.

motion
 

Guys he started out as a back 7.2.7 not on the line so does the 5 yds still apply/

It is a bit difficult to "see" the motion you are describing. Did the player in motion step up and move parallel to the LOS but also break the waist of the snapper or tight end while in motion? This probably puts him in a position that would result in an illegal formation. Or did he step forward and then angle forward while in motion running toward the tight end as opposed to running parallel to the LOS? This would result in illegal motion.

You know what you are trying to ask and can see it in your mind. You also know what is important here and what isn't. One interpretation of your play could say this is a perfectly legal play as it was legal motion as a back but another could say it is illegal motion on the LOS.

You left out an important part of that sentence and that is that he has to be 5 yds behind the line of scrimmage IF he started in a position where he didn't establish himself clearly as a back and according to the OP, he did.

Canadian Ruling
 

CANADIAN RULING:

Legal. Motion behind the line is not restricted.

The only restriction is that the eligibles on the ends of the line may only move laterally prior to the snap.

Yes, but he has to be a back to be in motion legally. If he is not a clearly established back then you have illegal motion there as well.

Has to be established as a back OR the player at the end of his line.If the person at the end of his line goes in motion he is required to be 5 yards behind the LOS

This is similar to a post on the other board. This player established himself as a back in his initial position and the only motion restriction on a back is that he not be moving forward at the snap.

This guy can go in motion and be moving down the line (he's still is a back in motion because he never stopped and reset) or he can be anywhere else behind the LOS when the ball is snapped and be legal.

The back cannot go in motion on the line of scrimmage, his motion must not be toward the opponents goal line. You have to interpret the rule to arrive at that conclusion as the back has to be one yard off the LOS and to get to the LOS his motion would be forward.

If the assumption is his motion is legal, that is, he is, at least, one yard off the LOS he can legally block the DE. But that legal block cannot be in the back or below the waist.

The five yards into the backfield was mentioned for the motion man. That only applies to a player who did not establish himself as a back before going in motion. This is an artifact from when a player could enter the free blocking zone and block below the waist.

So we get to dig really deep into the rule book on this one.

On page 89 under the motion section you can read......
"Except for the QB under the snapper, the player in motion who started from a position not clearly behind the line of scrimmage and did not establish himself as a back by stopping or at least one second, must be at least 5 yards behind the LOS at the snap. Either a player legally in the backfield or a player legally on the end of the LOS may go in motion if these previous requirements are satisfied.

So,

A) If you have a player established as a back he can go in motion and it is legal as long as he does not motion towards the opponents goal line.

B) If you have a player not established as a back he must be on the end of the Line and he must retreat at least 5 yards into the BF before the snap occurs.

Based on the original situation I believe case A applies I have been unable to find anything that says the motion must be 1 yard off the LOS. Ed, do you have a rules reference for that?

If not I might be changing my answer..... Legal motion?

I'll go you one farther - it only says he may not be going forward AT THE SNAP so, as long a back does not simulate the start of the play, his motion can ease forward. He can start as a legal back and he could work his way forward till he is even with the line of scrimmage and then keep moving parallel down the line as the ball is snapped. I've never seen it and it would give no particular advantage to A, but I would say it is legal.

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.

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!

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.

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.

I thought LOL
 

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?? :D LOL

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.

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

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.

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.

You're "disagreeing" with something I did not take issue with, and had nothing to do with my assessment.

It doesn't matter whether the player was set as a back originally or after a shift; at the snap, that player still has to be in a legal position either in the backfield or on the line or in position (with nobody else in that position) to take a handed snap. If in the backfield, he can be in lateral or backward motion; otherwise, must be set for 1 sec. Because of the rules determining whether a player is in A's backfield, widely spread linemen combined with backfield motion close to the line can make for a difficult call, but it shouldn't matter much unless a team is taking advantage of the scrimmage kick formation exemption.

Robert

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.

I think you have several problems here despite some attempts to make it seem legal. When all else fails, go to the rules.
Operating under the assumption the "back" is in motion along the line (which is what the original post seems to indicate) we have problems with:

2-32-3 says that to be a back no part of his body breaking the line thru the waist of the nearest legal lineman (except for the guy under center, also see 7-2-3). If he establishes himself as a back at the set and then his motion causes him to be running along the line, I don't see how he can not violate this definition & rule. Violation of 7-2-3 is an illegal formation.
7-5-6a tells us who the eligible A's are AT THE SNAP. Those eligibles include those who are at the end of the line. It does not say those who have established themselves as linemen or backs, just where they are at the snap. Since the motion back has (illegally) established himself on the line by meeting the definition 2-32-3, he is now on the line and is at the end (unless of course there is someone outside him). So he is covering the TE who has established himself on the line. Since the TE is no longer on the end of the line we have potential fouls of illegal touching & ineligible downfield.
See casebook ruling 7-2-3b which adequately addresses the situation. Just because you throw motion into the equation, doesn't mean these requirements suddenly go away.

ajmc, I respectfully disagree with you assessment. NF: 7.2.3 does not suggest, it states " Of the players of A who are not on the line at the snap only one may penetrate the waistline ...".

With that said, I would answer illegal formation on any test with this question. But from practical point in a game, I probably would not flag this action. As a wing man, I would punch him off the line with his original position and would hold that signal until his moves inside the end or the snap. Everyone (Defensive players, other officials, coaches, fan ...) recognizes him as a back. I would hope I am not that technical

I'm not sure, Robert, if we're addressing the same question. The original posting declares, "A lines up at wide out as a back,he sets for 2 sec." Since he's declared to be "a back" I'm presuming it is understood he does NOT penetrate the waistline.....

My suggestion is that once a player establishes himself as, either a lineman or a back, that remains his status until he re-sets in a different position which would change his status. After his position is established, his going in motion does not change the status he assumed when setting.

The purpose of a team setting and then pausing is to establish their positions, and by extension, eligibility.