Illegal Snap, Motion?

[Simbio]

A friend who coaches little league asked me this scenario. I wasn't positive, so I thought I would post it here:

Team A has 7 men on the line of scrimmage. Team A is in a "swinging gate" formation (all offensive players are lined up far out to the side) with no one standing over the ball. Receiver A80 motions towards the ball, and hikes it sideways in one conitinuous motion. Legal? Or does he have to set for one full second before hiking the ball?

[kdf5]

7-1-3...ART. 3 . . . Following the ready-for-play and after touching the ball, the snapper shall not:

a. Remove both hands from the ball.
b. Make any movement that simulates a snap.
c. Fail to clearly pause before the snap.
d. Following adjustment, lift or move the ball other than in a legal snap.

PENALTY: Encroachment (Arts. 1, 5, 6) – (S7-18); snap infraction (Arts. 2, 3); false start (Art. 7) – (S7-19) – 5 yards.

a-d would cause the ball to remain dead. If he was moving forward and picked up the ball and snapped it then technically you would have illegal motion but I would blow it dead and not let the play start and forget the IM. Nothing good would come of letting the play go.

[jaybird]

Originally Posted by Simbio

Team A has 7 men on the line of scrimmage. Team A is in a "swinging gate" formation (all offensive players are lined up far out to the side) with no one standing over the ball. Receiver A80 motions towards the ball, and hikes it sideways in one conitinuous motion. Legal? Or does he have to set for one full second before hiking the ball?

Sounds like he failed to pause before the snap. DB, snap infraction.

[Robert Goodman]

But it's not only the failure to clearly pause. To be touching the ball, the player would have to be on the line of scrimmage, and hence could not be in motion.

[SC Ump]

Snapper's shoulders must be parallel the to link of scrimmage.

[HossHumard]

And in addition to some requirements already stated here, in Canada, a snap MUST travel in between the centre's legs to be legal.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by HossHumard

And in addition to some requirements already stated here, in Canada, a snap MUST travel in between the centre's legs to be legal.

Not a requirement in NFHS football.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Simbio

A friend who coaches little league asked me this scenario. I wasn't positive, so I thought I would post it here:

Team A has 7 men on the line of scrimmage. Team A is in a "swinging gate" formation (all offensive players are lined up far out to the side) with no one standing over the ball. Receiver A80 motions towards the ball, and hikes it sideways in one conitinuous motion. Legal? Or does he have to set for one full second before hiking the ball?

CANADIAN RULING:

Illegal. The snapped ball must travel between the snapper's legs. IWO, side snaps are not permitted. Foul: Illegal Procedure. Penalty: 5 yards from PLS, DR.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by Simbio

A friend who coaches little league asked me this scenario. I wasn't positive, so I thought I would post it here:

Team A has 7 men on the line of scrimmage. Team A is in a "swinging gate" formation (all offensive players are lined up far out to the side) with no one standing over the ball. Receiver A80 motions towards the ball, and hikes it sideways in one conitinuous motion. Legal? Or does he have to set for one full second before hiking the ball?

Got to love little league "coaches."

Of course this is not legal. First of all for an end to go in motion he must be five yards in the backfield at the snap which precludes him snapping the ball unless he has his own superhero show.

Second, the end going in motion would leave only six men on the line, therefore, illegal formation.

Third, the snapper must face the line of scrimmage (the ball can be snapped in one continous motion sideways).

Fourth, the snapper must be in a set position to snap the ball.

This "coach" needs a copy of Football Coaching for Dummies.

[jaybird]

This "coach" needs a copy of Football Coaching for Dummies.

He needs to focus on teaching blocking and tackling and forget about the tom-foolery.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by jaybird

This "coach" needs a copy of Football Coaching for Dummies.

He needs to focus on teaching blocking and tackling and forget about the tom-foolery.

How this learning/teaching thing seems to works best is when someone realizes they don't know enough about something, the smart ones seek advice from someone they believe is smarter. That person can then share their knowledge, if they're sure what they know is correct.

If they're not sure, they can either fake an answer, or seek advise from someone they think may have more knowledge and then share what they learn with the original questioner. This way at least two people have increased their knowledge, and everybody is better off.

People who are ignorant, simply don't know something, and there are things everyone is ignorant about. When someone asks you for information, they're acknowledging they think you are smarter than them about the subject. If you know the answer you can demonstrate how smart you are, and if you aren't sure you can demonstrate your wisdom in choosing to find out before you provide an answer. Either way you look good and raise the general knowledge level.

Stupid people, on the other hand, discount their ignorance and blast ahead without seeking advice. The choice we have is often between helping someone become more knowledgable, or ignoring them and watching them stay stupid, understanding you may have to deal with their stupidity again.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by ajmc

How this learning/teaching thing seems to works best is when someone realizes they don't know enough about something, the smart ones seek advice from someone they believe is smarter. That person can then share their knowledge, if they're sure what they know is correct.

If they're not sure, they can either fake an answer, or seek advise from someone they think may have more knowledge and then share what they learn with the original questioner. This way at least two people have increased their knowledge, and everybody is better off.

People who are ignorant, simply don't know something, and there are things everyone is ignorant about. When someone asks you for information, they're acknowledging they think you are smarter than them about the subject. If you know the answer you can demonstrate how smart you are, and if you aren't sure you can demonstrate your wisdom in choosing to find out before you provide an answer. Either way you look good and raise the general knowledge level.

Stupid people, on the other hand, discount their ignorance and blast ahead without seeking advice. The choice we have is often between helping someone become more knowledgable, or ignoring them and watching them stay stupid, understanding you may have to deal with their stupidity again.

Huh!

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

Huh!

I'll type slower Ed. When someone asks a question, because they think you may be more knowledgable about a subject than they may be, it seems like Simbio took the right approach.

Rather than belittle and mock the intelligence of the questioner, he saw an opportunity to help someone learn and understand some of the finer points of the game and he chose to ask for advice from others he thought might be more knowledgable, to beable to provide the best answer. Several people were quick to respond and provide additional detail that I'm sure he'll share with the coach and both he and the coach will understand one more thing a little better. I guess he could have pointed out how ignorant the coach was to ask such a question, but neither he nor the coach would have gained anything by that approach.

Perhaps if you took a little time to help "little league coaches" to understand more, they'd show you a little "love" in return and wouldn't need to seek assistance from a copy of Football Coaching for Dummies.

[jaybird]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

Huh!

Ed,
Let me interpret. Al didn't have any answers or suggestions to the original post so he used a whole bunch of words to be sarcastic and to say nothing relevant.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by jaybird

Ed,
Let me interpret. Al didn't have any answers or suggestions to the original post so he used a whole bunch of words to be sarcastic and to say nothing relevant.

Thanks Jaybird,

Now I understand, it's the usual saracastic diatribe with a plethora of words and phrases devoid of any true meaning.