Huh? :confused:

I think he's talking about Australian Rules Football...

sounds more like star wars to me.:)

No, it's just that I've been watching football longer than some of you have been alive, and the same words in the rule haven't always been interpreted the way some of you think is so routine & obvious.

Maybe you need to craft your statement so it's useful to those of us officiating in the 21st century.

Not to be condescending to you ... but you've been on here long enough to know generally how valid the rules education one gets from "watching football" is.

It's actually pretty good if combined with knowledge from other sources. In this case it's very obvious, as the signals for offside, illegal motion, and illegal procedure have been the same across different codes for a very long time, and it's also very obvious whether a play was whistled dead. From this I can be very confident in telling you that, with no change in the applicable wording of the rule, it was common practice in cases where wide receivers went downfield before the snap, in those cases where the rules did not cause the play to be killed for encroachment, to allow the ball to be snapped and for the penalty to be for offsides/encroachment. Defenses were not fooled into thinking the ball was already put in play, and that being the rationale for the rule on false starts, such movements were not considered to be false starts.

IMO interpreting the action of a back who moved on an earlier snap count as a false start automatically is officiating to favor team A. Suppose you didn't; then here are the cases:

1. Team B is drawn offside.
2. Team B is not drawn offside, and by the time the ball is snapped, there is no illegal motion or shift.
3. Team B is not drawn offside, and when the ball is snapped, there is illegal motion or an illegal shift.

In case 1, you would rule a false start anyway if it appeared the action simulated the start of play. In case 2, by not calling it a false start team A is not penalized, but the execution of their play is probably messed up. In case 3, by not calling it a false start you would be depriving team B of the option of the result of the play, whose execution by A is probably messed up.

Maybe you do want to favor team A this way, but I don't think the wording of the rules calls for it. I think "simulating" here refers to a deliberate or at least consequential (in terms of affecting an opponent's play) act, as it does in a simulated substitution or simulating carrying the ball, and so a player who accidentally moves early, unless in violation of some specific provision of the rule on false starts, should not incur a false start call unless they cause the other team to react.

You're wrong, simulating action at the snap has nothing to do with what the defense does. If the player is moving because he thought the ball was going to be snapped then that is a false start. What if the offensive tackle is set with his hands not near the ground, he gets confused and thinks the ball with be snapped and takes two steps backwards, the ball is not snapped and his movement does not affect B in any way? Going by what you believe this would not be a foul as he was not in violation of any specific provision of the rule on false starts (other than simulating action at the snap) and he did not cause B to react.

Wow, I have never heard or seen any of this. Can you be more specific as to when all of this took place? B/C I've been playing/watching football since 1969 and this is the first time I've heard of this. When you say "downfield" do you mean beyond the neutral zone in the field of play? it's hard to imagine a wide receiver running a route before the ball is snapped and that not being a dead ball foul.

You may be surprised to learn that at least for many years, officials used team B's rxn as evidence of whether or not action at the snap was simulated. That's not to say it was necessary that they react to draw the call, nor that it was sufficient to determine that team A had simulated the start of play, but it was a decider in some cases.

Sometimes that sort of thing would be called, and sometimes not, depending on the details of the movement, but team B was given a lot of benefit of doubt in "deciding" whether that was a quick, jerky movement or not. If they tried to take advantage by thinking about it and then charging to draw the foul, however, they would be penalized.

Part of this philosophy was stated in NCAA rules whereby if a player of either team entered the neutral zone and drew a spontaneous immediate rxn charge, offside would be called on the first violator only. Another similar provision carries over from old NCAA rules into AFAIK current NFL rules wherein an interpretation is given of a certain type of shift where it's to be ruled a false start if and only if it causes team B to encroach. But mostly it was unwritten "philosophy" that was explained to me by an official in the 1970s.

I think today they just have a quicker whistle. The rules have changed very little on these matters for many decades, but you can see in old films that they used to give a lot of opp'ty for teams to get back onside and/or reset and get plays off legally. A lot of that went away when Fed made encroachment an instant foul, but there were a few years in the 1960s when they hedged even that, the rule stating that it was a live ball foul if the snap came before you could whistle.

I don't have to imagine it, I saw it enough times, receivers 5 yards downfield and no whistle unless contact was made; flag for offside, motion, or formation. Once I saw team A save it with a time out. At least as late as the 1970s, maybe the 1980s, and some in the 1960s, NCAA & pro rules.