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

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

If it was Fed rules you'd kill the play for encroachment. Otherwise unless it qualified as a false start (which it probably didn't), he can get back and reset a second before the snap, to avoid a foul for either encroachment or illegal motion (encroachment being the easier call) as the ball becomes live, which can lead to an enforcement or declination (or cancellation) of penalty.

He missed the snap count. This is a false start.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

He missed the snap count. This is a false start.

Maybe this is the way they rule now -- that you can accidentally simulate the start of play, rather than that simulation be understood to mean a deliberate act. All I know is that years ago, when the wording of the false start rule on this point was the same, wide receivers would sometimes be yards downfield at the snap, and play was allowed to proceed with team B being given the option. (Of course that was under Fed or non-Fed rules that didn't kill the play with the offside.)

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Maybe this is the way they rule now -- that you can accidentally simulate the start of play, rather than that simulation be understood to mean a deliberate act. All I know is that years ago, when the wording of the false start rule on this point was the same, wide receivers would sometimes be yards downfield at the snap, and play was allowed to proceed with team B being given the option. (Of course that was under Fed or non-Fed rules that didn't kill the play with the offside.)

Huh?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by waltjp

Huh?

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

[BroKen62]

Originally Posted by Welpe

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

sounds more like star wars to me.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Welpe

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

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.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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.

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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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.