illegal shift or illegal motion

[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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by kdf5

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.

No, no, I don't get offended by posts on the internet! Life is too short for that.

I meant only that the point is somewhat technical, and I didn't see the precision of Bob's account in your post.

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by mbyron

No, no, I don't get offended by posts on the internet! Life is too short for that.

I meant only that the point is somewhat technical, and I didn't see the precision of Bob's account in your post.

Somewhere I read that Bob is a "contracts manager". That would probably account for his concise and detailed writing.