illegal shift or illegal motion

[kdf5]

All 11 players stop for one second, which is a shift. Then two players go in motion, legally, since all players had stopped for one second. Both are moving at the snap. That is illegal motion. Had one of the two in motion stopped moving and the other kept going to the snap, then you would have had an illegal shift because if the one stopped moving then the other would have had to stop too for one second.

Illegal Motion:

7-2-7...Only one A player may be in motion at the snap and then only if such motion is not toward his opponent’s goal line......

Illegal shift:

7-2-6...After a huddle or shift all 11 players of A shall come to an absolute stop and shall remain stationary simultaneously without movement of hands, feet, head or body for at least one second before the snap

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by kdf5

All 11 players stop for one second, which is a shift. Then two players go in motion, legally, since all players had stopped for one second. Both are moving at the snap. That is illegal motion. Had one of the two in motion stopped moving and the other kept going to the snap, then you would have had an illegal shift because if the one stopped moving then the other would have had to stop too for one second.

Illegal Motion:

7-2-7...Only one A player may be in motion at the snap and then only if such motion is not toward his opponent’s goal line......

Or

Illegal shift:

7-2-6...After a huddle or shift all 11 players of A shall come to an absolute stop and shall remain stationary simultaneously without movement of hands, feet, head or body for at least one second before the snap

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by kdf5

All 11 players stop for one second, which is a shift. Then two players go in motion, legally, since all players had stopped for one second. Both are moving at the snap. That is illegal motion. Had one of the two in motion stopped moving and the other kept going to the snap, then you would have had an illegal shift because if the one stopped moving then the other would have had to stop too for one second.

kdf5, I don't think this is correct. Think of it this way: if you were designing a play, would you put 2 players in motion? Of course not: that can't ever be legal as a motion play. So it isn't: when 2 players or more are moving it's a shift, and if they don't come set it's an illegal shift.

With one player in motion, you have the possibility of legal motion. If he does something wrong (moves toward the LOS, for instance), then the motion becomes illegal motion.

The fouls here are based on the idea that whatever the team is doing starts out legal, and if they screw it up it's illegal. So having two players moving at the snap would have to be an illegal shift.

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by mbyron

kdf5, I don't think this is correct. Think of it this way: if you were designing a play, would you put 2 players in motion? Of course not: that can't ever be legal as a motion play. So it isn't: when 2 players or more are moving it's a shift, and if they don't come set it's an illegal shift.

With one player in motion, you have the possibility of legal motion. If he does something wrong (moves toward the LOS, for instance), then the motion becomes illegal motion.

The fouls here are based on the idea that whatever the team is doing starts out legal, and if they screw it up it's illegal. So having two players moving at the snap would have to be an illegal shift.

Sorry, mbyron and waltjp, but it is correct. Two men moving at the snap can't be an illegal shift because an illegal shift could only be called if one of the two stopped moving, or shifted (2-39...A shift is the action of one or more offensive players who, after a huddle or after taking set positions, move to a new set position before the ensuing snap.), which in the original play, didn't happen. A shift happens once a player stops moving. Once any player shifts, then they all have to shift (stop moving). Walt, you claim this is a an illegal shift and highlight the part about all 11 players must come to a stop, which is correct, BUT after a shift and after at least one second of everyone remaining motionless after that shift, someone then can go in motion and be in motion at the snap. Note that 7-2-7 says it can only be ONE player. This is from Bob M's article: Motion vs. Shift:

PLAY: Set backs A10 and A32 mistakenly both go in motion on the QB’s signal. Their motion is parallel to the line of scrimmage. The ball is snapped (a) while both are still moving, or (b) after A10 stops, realizing that something’s wrong, while A32 continues with his motion. RULING: In (a) Team A is guilty of illegal motion. They have two players moving at the snap. [Note: this is a foul that a lot of referees mistakenly call an illegal shift.] In (b) A is guilty of an illegal shift. Once A10 stops, he’s completed a shift, which requires all eleven offensive players—including A32—to be set for at least one second.

http://home.comcast.net/~minnmo/foot...-newFormat.doc

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by kdf5

Sorry, mbyron and waltjp, but it is correct. Two men moving at the snap can't be an illegal shift because an illegal shift could only be called if one of the two stopped moving, or shifted (2-39...A shift is the action of one or more offensive players who, after a huddle or after taking set positions, move to a new set position before the ensuing snap.), which in the original play, didn't happen. A shift happens once a player stops moving. Once any player shifts, then they all have to shift (stop moving). Walt, you claim this is a an illegal shift and highlight the part about all 11 players must come to a stop, which is correct, BUT after a shift and after at least one second of everyone remaining motionless after that shift, someone then can go in motion and be in motion at the snap. Note that 7-2-7 says it can only be ONE player. This is from Bob M's article: Motion vs. Shift:

PLAY: Set backs A10 and A32 mistakenly both go in motion on the QB’s signal. Their motion is parallel to the line of scrimmage. The ball is snapped (a) while both are still moving, or (b) after A10 stops, realizing that something’s wrong, while A32 continues with his motion. RULING: In (a) Team A is guilty of illegal motion. They have two players moving at the snap. [Note: this is a foul that a lot of referees mistakenly call an illegal shift.] In (b) A is guilty of an illegal shift. Once A10 stops, he’s completed a shift, which requires all eleven offensive players—including A32—to be set for at least one second.

http://home.comcast.net/~minnmo/foot...-newFormat.doc

kd, I'm not getting into a pissing match with you over this. Call it as you wish.

[kdf5]

Take is easy Walt. I posted Bob's article and you can read it for yourself.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by kdf5

Take is easy Walt. I posted Bob's article and you can read it for yourself.

I read Bob's article, and it makes sense. I defer.

kdf5, your explanation needs work. What I found persuasive in Bob's piece was the idea that motion does not become a shift until at least one of the players sets. So if neither of two players moving sets before the snap, it's not a shift. If one (or both) of them sets, it's now a shift.

I was also intrigued by the rarely called illegal shifts involving the QB coming up under center while the motion man is moving. Good stuff!

[JugglingReferee]

How one says something is often more important than what someone says. You would be amazed at what you can tell/get from people by your delivery method!

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I read Bob's article, and it makes sense. I defer.

kdf5, your explanation needs work. What I found persuasive in Bob's piece was the idea that motion does not become a shift until at least one of the players sets. So if neither of two players moving sets before the snap, it's not a shift. If one (or both) of them sets, it's now a shift.

I was also intrigued by the rarely called illegal shifts involving the QB coming up under center while the motion man is moving. Good stuff!

If by "needs work" you mean you took offense to what I wrote then I apologize. I meant no offense to anyone. If the explanation was close but not quite spot on, it was because it was early in the morn when I wrote it.

[dumbref]

Originally Posted by kdf5

Sorry, mbyron and waltjp, but it is correct. Two men moving at the snap can't be an illegal shift because an illegal shift could only be called if one of the two stopped moving, or shifted (2-39...A shift is the action of one or more offensive players who, after a huddle or after taking set positions, move to a new set position before the ensuing snap.), which in the original play, didn't happen. A shift happens once a player stops moving. Once any player shifts, then they all have to shift (stop moving). Walt, you claim this is a an illegal shift and highlight the part about all 11 players must come to a stop, which is correct, BUT after a shift and after at least one second of everyone remaining motionless after that shift, someone then can go in motion and be in motion at the snap. Note that 7-2-7 says it can only be ONE player. This is from Bob M's article: Motion vs. Shift:

PLAY: Set backs A10 and A32 mistakenly both go in motion on the QB’s signal. Their motion is parallel to the line of scrimmage. The ball is snapped (a) while both are still moving, or (b) after A10 stops, realizing that something’s wrong, while A32 continues with his motion. RULING: In (a) Team A is guilty of illegal motion. They have two players moving at the snap. [Note: this is a foul that a lot of referees mistakenly call an illegal shift.] In (b) A is guilty of an illegal shift. Once A10 stops, he’s completed a shift, which requires all eleven offensive players—including A32—to be set for at least one second.

http://home.comcast.net/~minnmo/foot...-newFormat.doc

Nobody has more respect for Bob M.'s opinions than I. On this one I happen to disagree. IMHO a legal shift must be completed before one man can go in motion - therefore an illegal shift. But it's not worth making a big deal out of it. The results are pretty much the same.

[Bob M.]

Originally Posted by dumbref

Nobody has more respect for Bob M.'s opinions than I. On this one I happen to disagree. IMHO a legal shift must be completed before one man can go in motion - therefore an illegal shift. But it's not worth making a big deal out of it. The results are pretty much the same.

REPLY: You're right that it's just a technicality. But...

NF 7-2-7:
"ART. 7 . . . Only one A player may be in motion at the snap and then only if such motion is not toward his opponent’s goal line."

...and...

"PENALTY: Illegal formation (Arts. 1, 2, 3) – (S19); illegal snap (Art. 4) – (S7- 19); illegal numbering (Art. 5) – (S19); illegal shift (Art. 6) – (S20); illegal motion (Art. 7) – (S20); planned loose-ball infraction (Art. 8) – (S19) – 5 yards."

[dumbref]

Originally Posted by Bob M.

REPLY: You're right that it's just a technicality. But...

NF 7-2-7:
"ART. 7 . . . Only one A player may be in motion at the snap and then only if such motion is not toward his opponent’s goal line."

...and...

"PENALTY: Illegal formation (Arts. 1, 2, 3) – (S19); illegal snap (Art. 4) – (S7- 19); illegal numbering (Art. 5) – (S19); illegal shift (Art. 6) – (S20); illegal motion (Art. 7) – (S20); planned loose-ball infraction (Art. 8) – (S19) – 5 yards."

Bob,

How do you pronounce potato? Don't make me type 7-2-6 and all the summary penalties and highlight the words … let’s call the whole thing off! Great artical BTW!

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by dumbref

Nobody has more respect for Bob M.'s opinions than I. On this one I happen to disagree. IMHO a legal shift must be completed before one man can go in motion - therefore an illegal shift. But it's not worth making a big deal out of it. The results are pretty much the same.

Did you read Bob M.'s piece? With 2 men in motion, it's not a shift until one of them sets. THEN it's a shift, and an illegal one if the other fails to set before the snap.

Merely having 2 men in motion is not by itself a shift, and thus it cannot be an illegal shift. But it IS motion, and thus illegal motion if they're both still moving at the snap.

Bob also mentions in the piece that the point is a technicality, since it's likely to be flagged and enforced identically, no matter what it's called.