WR - false start vs. illegal motion vs. illegal shift

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by stegenref

I had a game last night where a wide receiver (on the line) started moving before the snap and actually crossed the line of scrimmage before the ball was snapped. I blew my whistle, threw my flag, and signalled the white hat that I had a false start. We went ahead and enforced it, but at halftime we talked about it some more. He told me I called it correctly, but he said if the receiver had not crossed the LOS, it would've been a live ball foul for illegal motion / shift and that case I should throw the flag but not kill the play by blowing my whistle. The Umpire told me that only interior linemen can false start.

So what is the difference between a false start, illegal motion, and illegal shift for wideouts and / or those in the backfield?

Sounds like your white hat needs a lesson false start vs. illegal motion. If the receiver did anything that simulated action at the snap, he has committed a false start. The rule is very clear on that:

Rule 7-1-7a
After the ball is marked ready for play and before the snap begins, no false start shall be made by any A player. It is a false start if a shift or feigned charge simulates action at the snap.

What your white hat is probably confused about is the running back who rocks out of his set position a little early and it could have been considered the beginning of shift if not for the snap. There are differing opinions on whether that should be a false start or illegal motion.

[ppaltice]

If he was in the NZ, no question that you had to shut the play down (NFHS). If he was starting his route before the ball was snapped, I concur: False Start. The umpire is incorrect in thinking only interior linemen can false start (although as an umpire, those are the only players he would call a false start on).

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

What your white hat is probably confused about is the running back who rocks out of his set position a little early and it could have been considered the beginning of shift if not for the snap. There are differing opinions on whether that should be a false start or illegal motion.

I agree that the white hat is confused. As for this sitch, a RB rocking forward could be FS or IM but not both, and it shouldn't be a matter of opinion but of judgment. Perhaps that's what you mean.

If the covering official judges that the rocking simulates motion at the snap, then it's a FS; if not, then it's IM for moving toward the LOS at the snap. It's also possible for him to reset and be legal. Usually it a false start.

As for the OP, the covering official actually has 3 choices: FS will be the most common, I imagine, though IM is also possible. If the receiver moved forward without simulating the snap and the ball was not snapped, encroachment is also possible.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by mbyron

As for this sitch, a RB rocking forward could be FS or IM but not both, and it shouldn't be a matter of opinion but of judgment. Perhaps that's what you mean.

Agreed. But the "judgment" of some officials is that if a RB is moving forward at the snap in this manner, there is no way he was going in motion. He missed or jumped the snap and it should be FS every time. Their argument is don't apply judgment. I'm not sure where I land.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

Agreed. But the "judgment" of some officials is that if a RB is moving forward at the snap in this manner, there is no way he was going in motion. He missed or jumped the snap and it should be FS every time. Their argument is don't apply judgment. I'm not sure where I land.

It's rare that I don't shut this down.