False Start Rule 7.1.7b
 

Varsity Scrimmage last night.

After the game the coach had a couple clarifying questions for us mostly over some of the rules changes, then he asked us this one...

Rule 7.1.7b says, (It is a false start if) Any act is clearly intended to cause B to encroach.

Situation: 4th and less than 5 to go, A lines up in a legal formation and the quarterback under center goes into his snap count just as he does for every other play. No A players flinch or move in anyway, but the ball is never snapped. B encroaches. Does rule 7.1.7b make this a false start, because the act was clearly intended to cause B to encroach?

The 5 of us looked at each other and said, "Ummm, no" But we couldn't really say why not?

First real game of the season tonight, getting excited!

IMO there would have to be some action by A to cause the officials to believe that it was done to cause B to encroach.
>
In laymans terms- some action out of the ordinary.

Then why have the QB give counts?--If that was the case then each time B encroached then you could say it was done to cause B to enter the netural zone.

In this case, there is no "act," and so no foul by A. The omission of an act (a snap) does not itself constitute an act "clearly intended to cause B to encroach."

The rule is intended to penalize a QB's head bob with hard count, a sudden jump off the line by a wing going in motion, and other such acts (of commission).

There's a sort of smart alecky response justified by the literal wording of the rule, and that is that a "no play" is not an act, but the lack of one.

There was a discussion a couple mos. ago or so about this wording in the Rules section of Coach Huey's Web board. There are just certain things customarily allowed and others customarily disallowed.

Ever since the neutral zone came into the game, and actually even to an extent beforehand (when offside/onside was determined by foot position), the offense has wanted to maximize its advantage in control of when the ball is snapped. Ultimately it can be said that the aim of all attempts to draw the other team offside is not to get a encroachment penalties but to make team B react more slowly and to negate certain "tells" team A might have as to when the snap is coming. (The recently discussed case of the player who vaulted the snapper to block a try kick obviously resulted from A's failure to disguise the snap's timing.) However, in any particular case that might result in encroachment by B, and in some situations team A is definitely trying to draw it.

Rules makers in all the football governing bodies have decided that certain specific pre-snap fakes by A will be ruled as false starts either because they decided such tactics gave A too much of an advantage disguising their tells, or that it was too easy to draw B offside on any particular down by such moves. Probably with each such prohibition, however, teams adjusted to a new equilibrium in terms of how quickly B can react, and the proportion of plays prevented or negated by penalty resumed its previous percentages.

However, to some degree the general false start rules were left open to judgement in all codes, and Fed's language above is the most open ended of all. Everybody knows that extreme variation in the loudness of the snap count ("...hut...hut...HUT") is exactly an act (a fake "tell") intended to cause B to encroach, but has anybody ever flagged it? The same could be said of a snap count used with "no play", for if there's no intention to snap the ball, why use a snap count? (That's the comeback to the smart aleck answer above -- failure to snap the ball isn't an act, but verbal signals are.)

However, it is conceivable that "hut...HUT" is used to disguise an involuntary tell that some signal callers might have where they give the final "hut" a little more loudness without realizing it. Similarly, "no play" is used as a tool against defenses, paticularly blitzing ones, that have been getting into the offensive backfield too quickly. So custom is to allow these to preserve the officials' sense of how much surprise team A is entitled to inflict by the timing of their snap.

Robert

Some wise man once stated, "you can draw a picture of a beautiful woman, but you can't.....make love to it". The same might apply to a football play described in words, isn't necessarily workable when put into action.

The exact comprehension of what, "clearly intended to cause B to encroach" means to a coach, designing such a play, may not have the same meaning to the covering official.

I would think that you would have encroachment on the defense as long as A doesn't have a foul for delay of game. We see it all of the time but usually the QB is smart enough, or been coached enough, to call time out before the delay is called. Jim

Spot on with this answer.

No, not so spot on. Other provisions of Fed's or of NCAA's false start provisions would at least outlaw the head bob, and probably the sudden jump start (have to see it). Fed seems to have purposely adopted an open-ended wording that's sure to lead to disagreements. What if a player of A pretends to be watching a BJ's signals or play clock and yells, "Pass the ball now!"? How about, "Darn! Every time I get into 3-point, my nose itches. Would you mind scratching it for me?"

Robert

What the hey?
I need a philosophy of intended action degree.

Yeah..another what the hey.

Pass the ball NOW would be no different than the HC or a player telling the QB to snap the ball quickly due to play clock nearing expiration. Nothing at all there. The part about a player trying to get another one to itch his nose would fall under nothing but maybe taunting or unsportsmanlike, and a simple "knock it off" would take care of that.

Reading a little too into that IMO.

You may want to rephrase that! :-O

Go ahead...I'll play along.

No, not so spot on. Other provisions of Fed's or of NCAA's false start provisions would at least outlaw the head bob, and probably the sudden jump start (have to see it). Fed seems to have purposely adopted an open-ended wording that's sure to lead to disagreements. What if a player of A pretends to be watching a BJ's signals or play clock and yells, "Pass the ball now!"? How about, "Darn! Every time I get into 3-point, my nose itches. Would you mind scratching it for me?"

Robert

Yeah..another what the hey.

Pass the ball NOW would be no different than the HC or a player telling the QB to snap the ball quickly due to play clock nearing expiration. Nothing at all there. The part about a player trying to get another one to itch his nose would fall under nothing but maybe taunting or unsportsmanlike, and a simple "knock it off" would take care of that.

Reading a little too into that IMO.
Yesterday 12:05pm

What might I want to rephrase...? The "knock it off" part or the nose itching part...?

These are your examples here partner....no one elses.

I think the comment Robert made was an attempt at humor. He was saying that maybe saying "knock it off" to a player who has just invited an opponent to scratch his nose might mean you are inviting him to knock the opponent's nose off. ;)

Yeah! And then he'd have to find it on the ground to scratch it, and that might be far. Don't you just hate when you have an itch you can't reach?