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

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?

Define "started moving". Simulating the beginning of the play is a false start and should be flagged and whistled immediately. Merely moving forward (or starting to lean slowly forward) is just motion, and can still be corrected before the snap, so should NOT be whistled.

Generally, IM is 2 guys or moving forward at the snap. IS is not being set long enough. (Generally).

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.

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).

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.

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.

[Define "started moving"]

He started moving in that he leaned forward, then took a step, and crossed the line of scrimmage...he was heading out to either block or run a pattern.

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.

:eek:

Anyone on the offense can false start. Going in motion or moving is a different situation. I think we make this too hard.

Peace

Here's the way I see the diffs

False Start is simulating the start of the play. A back that suddenly lurches or stumbles forward has false started no matter how much he tries to make it look like he was just going in motion.

Illegal Shift is when more than one player moves/shifts at the same time and they don't all set before the snap. If one sets, and the other remains in motion, you still have an illegal shift.

Illegal Motion is when all have set and 1 player goes into motion but is in motion illegally. Typically this happens when the motion man is moving forward at the snap. This includes a back that starts into motion legally (ie not false starting) which can be done by moving forward first and the snap happens before he turns to move parallel or backward. If the motion man turns up early before the snap, he's false started.

As for your play, you have to make a decision if his action simulated the start or he was just starting into motion. I'd say if you have any doubt which one it is, go with false start and shut the mess down.

I completely agree. The only thing that might need to be added, if the defense moves at what might be an abrupt action, then consider this a false start on the offense if the movement could go either way.

Peace

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? :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.