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

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Cobra

You're wrong, simulating action at the snap has nothing to do with what the defense does.

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.

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.

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.