Defensive calls Illegal...?
 

Is there a rule against a defensive player yelling out "go" and if so what rule is in th NFHS Rulebook...?

Thanks!

Yes. 9-5-1d

ART. 1 . . . No player shall act in an unsportsmanlike manner once the officials ssume authority for the contest. Examples are, but not limited to:

d. Using disconcerting acts or words prior to the snap in an attempt to interfere with A’s signals or movements.

Luke provided the rule reference. Enforcement will depend on what happens. If the defense gets the offense to jump, I'm not going to penalize a false start for this, but obviously somebody has to get a flag. USC.

If the "disconcerting acts" have no impact, I'll warn the player and tell the coach. If he does it again, flag it.

Correct. And in college it would be classified as a delay of game if I remember correctly.

I don't have the rulebook or casebook with me at the moment, but I believe the casebook (or maybe it's the rulebook) requires the QB to be in his cadence at the time the defense attempts to verbally disconcert the offense.

Around here, we get a lot of teams who yell "shift" and two down-DLmen will make a quick movement/shift. I've flagged the USC only to have coaches say something like, "You mean we can't shift??!?!"

What do you think? What if the defense yells "shift" and actually DOES shift?

Below is the referenced case play RadioBlue.


9.5.1 SITUATION B: B1 calls defensive signals loudly: (a) before A takes its set position; or (b) during the time A1 is giving his cadence count; or (c) while A1 is using audibles. RULING: Legal in (a). In (b) and (c), if in the official’s judgment the action by B1 was for the purpose of disconcerting or hindering A, it is an unsportsmanlike-conduct foul. In this case, the official should sound his whistle before the snap. (9-5-1d)




While looking for that case play I came across this...

7.1.7 SITUATION C: On third and 10 from A's 40-yard line, all team A players are set. While quarterback A1 is calling signals, defensive back B1, starting from a position eight yards behind his line of scrimmage, runs toward the neutral zone. B1 stops directly in front of tackle A4 but does not enter the neutral zone. In response to B1's charge, A4 (a) does not move, or (b) flinches. RULING: No foul in (a). In (b), A4 is guilty of a dead-ball foul for false start. If in the official's judgment the action by B1 was for the purpose of disconcerting or hindering A, it is an unsportsmanlike conduct foul. In this case, the official should sound the whistle before the snap. (7-1-7; 9-5-1d)

Anyone ever call USC on a defensive player that rushed the line and didn't enter the neutral zone?

Most officials would argue to their death that it is not illegal for B to do that.

They don't care what the casebook says.

Wow. That'd be a hard sell. It's hard-enough to sell USC for the defense using verbal disconcerting acts.

The offense gets the advantage here; the defense must avoid interfering with the offensive signals. If they yell "shift" or "hut" or anything else, and you feel it's interfering with A, then make them stop. It doesn't matter if they are calling legitimate signals or not or just making noise.

Once I told them to stop barking like dogs :confused:

You need to get out more often. Most???? :rolleyes:

Peace

Yeah, that seemed like quite an indictment....

Sorry BJ but for you to have some standing to make that statement, you would have had to seen MOST officials. And you haven't. In fact, I'd doubt you've never seen anyone on this forum work a game.

Let me qualify then. Most I have seen in my 25 years in Ohio.

Worked a game last year where ball was snapped to QB in shot gun who was obviously not ready for the ball. Ball was recovered by defense. Coach for A argued that defense was barking signals that caused the snapper to snap the ball. From the U position it was impossible to discern any signals since both teams were calling things up until the snap. It happened again later in the game but caused a false start this time. I still didn't hear anything so couldn't flag it. I did tell the defensive line that if anyone is doing what the other was saying they were doing and I caught it, they would get a 15-yard USC penalty. One of the brain donors on the line said, "OK guys, stop doing that." UGGHH...he admitted to doing it which almost made me more mad! I've talked to several officials about it and they agreed it would be pretty hard to catch that but you have to get it if you hear it.

I believe the key comment in the case book play included earlier is, "If in the official's judgment the action by B1 was for the purpose of disconcerting or hindering A, it is an unsportsmanlike conduct foul."

If you want to put up with a never ending escalation of nonsense, you can ignore this silliness, otherwise you can choose to put a stop to it, either by letting the linemen, on both teams, know in uncertain terms it's unacceptable or, if necessary, flagging someone.

:mad:I have told officials, The defense can't use those tactics and been told. "Sure they can coach, that is football".

I wouldn't know how to make it any clearer than, "in the official's judgment".

Which clearly means, "it is called differently, every Friday night!" Just depends on what kind of official is making that judgment call. That my friend is called, inconsistency and that is what drives coaches crazy!

Well that's what happens when you using human beings as officials. Someone has to make the judgment whether or not an act is illegal. We can use rules an philosophy but we still have to apply our judgment. That is what we get paid to do.

John, I still think you would benefit from seeing some snaps as an official. My this discussion seems familiar.

The problem is that oftentimes a guy's philosophy of football impairs his judgment of the rules and interpretations as written.

I think I would do just fine as an official and may do just that when I no longer am a coach. I will retire from teaching and coaching in 5 years and plan to do just that.

I wouldn't be so quick to discount it...I thought the same thing when I was a coach. ;)

Have you ever considered that rather than the inconsistency driving you crazy, it's your expectation that things that happen in different games, between different teams and players, under different circumstances and conditions would some how be rigidly consistent, that's causing your agita?

You have a lot of serious things taking place in your games. I rarely ever hear the defense give signals that at all can be confused with the offense. Dude, what kind of cheap football do you guys play in Ohio?

Peace

Whatever, Rut. Like that cheap crap doesn't happen in ILL. They just have fights and get banned for the season.
:p

I never said it does not happen, but it does not happen every game or even every other game. You claim a bunch of stuff happens every game that most of us hardly see in a single season. If it is not this, it is butt blocking and tackling, then intentional grounding. I do not even hear coaches complaining about these things the way you do.

And yes there was a fight and there was a kid that died of an asthma attack that same Friday and neither happened in my games. I would not say those were common occurrences. But if they happen once in your game, to you they happen all the time.

Peace

I have never said all things happen in just my games. I see a lot of games and have been doing this a long time, Mr Official. I see 3 to 5 scouting tapes a week and see clips from games all over the state via the internet.

Let me get this straight, you get videos that have enough sound to hear what players are saying to each other? I mean it is difficult to hear NFL and college games with much more technology to know what is being said directly on the field all the time. Even if you saw tape, I find it hard to believe that there are defenses doing this all the time to the point they are violating the rules. Defense can call signals out to each other that is legal. And I have never heard a coach complain that they saw this on tape and this was something we needed to watch out for. Now when it comes to low blocks or hitting someone out of the play, I heard that from time to time. Never head someone claim this was done after they watched the tape.

Peace

Most scouting films have sound. You would not believe the comments we hear from film crews and coaches on the scout tapes(DVDs) it is hilarious sometimes.

We get scouting tapes too, but those are comments from the press box and not only the field. Or better yet you hear the fans and other people standing near the camera. You usually do not hear things directly on the field or the sideline for that matter.

Peace

I actually had a disconcerting signals in a game this year. I was FJ and back about 18 yards, and even I clearly heard it. The O jumped offside at the signal (a hut from the NT) and flags went (not mine).
I ran in to ask the others if they had heard the hut from the NT and they all agreed that he had done it to draw the FS.
No real problem and no discussion - most teams around here are quiet on defense which would make it obvious if they try something like this.

I suggest the adoption of words reserved to teams A & B, respectively. Just a couple of short lists of words the other team couldn't use at the line.

And then we, as officials, would have to discern exactly what word was said by a player who has a mouth full of a mouth guard? No, thank you.

We already have lists. They are in the mind of, "the covering official" in whom NF: 1-1-6 provides the authority, "to rule promptly and in the spirit of good sportsmanship" and whose decisions, "are final in all matters pertaining to the game.".

Common sense would suggest that the way for patricipants to insure they are compliant, would be to stay as far away as possible from from what might be on that list, by behaving themselves. Risk versus reward applies, and that is how it should be considered.

Easier than detecting whether a signal was disconcerting. Remember, the players are listening for those words too, so it's not like your job would be any harder than theirs. If you didn't hear a certain word, they didn't hear it either.

Robert

Are you serious Robert? The "disconcerting" sounds may or may not be words at all.

Then (under my proposal) they wouldn't be illegal, unless they were drowning out the other team's signals.

So then it just goes back to the official's judgment on whether B was able to drown out A's signals enough for it to be a foul. How exactly is that any better than the current rule?

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Because officials are also required to determine whether B is trying to confuse A by imitating their signals. But because there's no rule reserving certain words to either team, you don't know whether when B1 calls "shift" he's trying to get team A to shift, or when he calls "go" he's trying to get them to snap the ball, or whether he's just giving a signal to team B.

Robert

And it's not always easy to determine who said "shift" or "go". Unless you are watching the QB's mouth (which nobody should be doing), you can't tell if it's coming from him or one of the defenders.

Of course. So now tell me how adopting reserved words for either team would make the "disconcerting signals" call any harder than it is now. True, it doesn't make it easier for you to tell who's saying what, but it shouldn't make it any harder, either.

Did you think I was proposing making this a strict liability thing where any utterance of the word at any volume by the wrong team would be a foul? If so, sorry; I meant it only as a way to clarify situations where they were talking loudly enough to make confusion a possibility.

My suggestion doesn't come from nowhere. I'd read decades ago of a convention supposedly adopted in Ivy League football where the defense was allowed to say only "move" at the line. I don't know whether that was an unenforced agreement between teams, or an interpretation the officials in league games were supposed to use in making a "disconcerting signals" call.

Robert

There goes the neighborhood!

Disconcerting Act?
 

So, what kinds of acts would you consider a disconcerting "act?"

I was told by a friend of a high school game this past weekend in which all the defensive linemen on a certain signal all did a belly flop. It caused the offense to jump and the crew ruled a false start by the offense.

Any thoughts?

Same deal. That's not football.

You're missing the simplicity of the current rule. Whether or not any actions or words are judged to violate the rules is entirely and completely deterrmined by the covering official, alone. That's why, without a really thorough understanding of what that particular official may consider over the line, it's really foolish to risk being silly.

But why should that official have to or be allowed to make that judgement? It's like stationing a policeman at an uncontrolled intersection (no signs, no rules as to who would have the right of way) to make judgements on his own as opposed to having a yield sign or rule indicating who has the right of way. In this case, it's a verbal right of way. You put a stop sign around certain words, so that if someone goes into that intersection and interferes with cross traffic, you'd know who was at fault.

Robert

What, like if you get the other team laughing, they forget how to play? I wouldn't consider that disconcerting in a way that would violate that rule.

Robert, you're fighting the inevitable. The rules makers had to establish a point of FINAL decision making, and did so by providing that authority to game officials. Of course game officials can be held accountable for their decisions, but it is THEIR judgments that have been deemed FINAL.

Without that clarification there would be never ending disputes and silly arguments. You have to keep reminding yourself, we are involved in a GAME, not something worthy of, or intended for, endless debate.

You seem to approach this as if I'm from outer space. I'm sure you don't approach the rest of the game this way.

Of course the referee's judgment is final, but going by the logic you seem to be using on this question, why have a rule book at all? Why not just say, judge what's fair in football, and leave it to the officials at that?

Or, to take a less extreme example, why do they have definitions for such acts as hurdling (to take a recently discussed case)? Sure, they could have left the term undefined, but they chose to clarify and thereby make the related rule more particular.

I don't see why the same sort of clarif'n wouldn't improve the situation w.r.t. disconcerting signals. If a player of one team may be trying to make a player of the other team think a signal has been given to their team to do something such as snap the ball, but it could just as well be the case that the signal was a legitimate one the player who was saying it intended for his own team, why would it not be an improvement to reserve certain words for one side or the other? Would it not reduce the number of unclear situations wherein you might otherwise rule incorrectly on the intention of one team or another?

It's like with intentional grounding. If it were left entirely to officials' judgment as to whether a pass was thrown with the intention of its being incomplete, that would make for a harder call than it is when the additional requirement is included that it not be in the direction of an eligible receiver.

So why are you writing as if I'm making some ridiculous argument?

Robert

Take a deep breath Robert, there is a definition for the word disconcerting. The point is that it has been decided that it is the covering official's judgement ALONE as to what constitutes disconcerting. Leaving such decisions in the hands of game officials has worked exceedingly well for over 100 years.

The ambiguity built into those decisions is largely based on experience with the soundness, impartiality and rationality of judgments made by game officials over the decades. Since it clearly isn't broke, there's really no need to tinker trying to fix anything.

Whenever a team, or a player, chooses to make some sort of signal, sound or otherwise indication that could reasonably be judged to be a disconcerting factor, they would be well advised to abandon that device for something that doesn't offer multiple interpretations. What we do isn't rocket science nor should we try and over complicate it. When a team, or player, insists on doing or saying something that can be interpreted different ways, they assume the risk of possible misinterpretation.

Another example of why officials should have coaching experience. You don't make up new signals during a game. If each team has prearranged the same signal word, something's got to give. I don't see why this should be any more controversial than having the teams wear contrasting colors.

Robert

I agree with you 100%. Even more critical though is I think young coaches should get their officials license and work some junior high or freshman games. Many officials have played or coached. Most coaches have never officiated.

Why only young coaches? Why does it matter if the first year coach is 25 or 45?