Illegal motion or shift?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by broken62

reading through the rule book a minute ago and came across this gem in the 2009 edition of nfhs:

the major problem in dealing with false starts is the inconsistency in administration.
Whether or not a false start has occurred, or not, is not predicated upon whether the
defender encroaches or not, or by the down and/or distance.

+1

[bigjohn]

No that isn't what I meant. Many officials on these boards say you can't call 7-1-7b by the book because then you would have to penalize a wild snap count or hard count.

My point is you can still penalize an act that is solely designed to draw B off such as the snap down punt and the possum play(where hard count is used but ball is never snapped)

By rule those are plays(acts) devised just to draw B into the NZ to draw an encroachment penalty!

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

the possum play(where hard count is used but ball is never snapped)

By rule those are plays(acts) devised just to draw B into the NZ to draw an encroachment penalty!

The what play? Describe please?

[bigjohn]

4th and less than 5, A lines up in a formation like they are going to run a play, make a quick move to the center, loud HUT!!! Move back in shotgun. Shift! Couple of people move. Then a long series of hard counts, pick foot up, then call time out or let the DOG penalty flag fly and then back up 5 and punt. Just trying to draw the defense off and never intending to snap the ball.

[bigjohn]

want to see snapdown punt, click on 2009 season then piketon and watch both clips, the second one was not called false start even though there is a casebook play that covers it.

Waverly High School Boys Varsity Football Highlight Videos, Schedule & Roster - Hudl

[BroKen62]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Of course the snap count is an act. The rule should prohibit acts whose ONLY purpose is to cause B to encroach. Since a snap count is part of the sequence leading to a snap, and since teams are legally permitted to vary their snap count, this kind of deception is not a violation of the rules.

What would be some examples of acts whose ONLY purpose is to cause B to encroach? Not trying to be cute, but I can't think of any that would not fall under the "sequence leading to a snap."

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

4th and less than 5, A lines up in a formation like they are going to run a play, make a quick move to the center, loud HUT!!! Move back in shotgun. Shift! Couple of people move. Then a long series of hard counts, pick foot up, then call time out or let the DOG penalty flag fly and then back up 5 and punt. Just trying to draw the defense off and never intending to snap the ball.

Why in the name of all that's holy would that be illegal?

[bigjohn]

7-1-7
b. Any act is clearly intended to cause B to encroach.


FALSE STARTS
Rule 7-1-7 is clear as to what constitutes a false start. A false start occurs if a player commits
a shift or feigned charge simulating action at the snap, if any player’s act is clearly
intended to cause the defender(s) to encroach, or when any offensive player(s) on the line
between the snapper and the player on the end of the line, after placing his or her hand(s)
on or near the ground, moves his or her hand(s) or makes any quick movement. This last
statement is referring to that final set position prior to the snap that is assumed without a
previous shift occurring or after a previous shift has occurred.

[bigjohn]

2008 rules book POE

A shift occurs whenever the offensive team breaks the huddle and assumes a pre-snap
position; when linemen or backs move from an upright position to a position with hands on
knees or thighs; when linemen or backs move from a position with hands on knees or
thighs to a three- or four-point down position; when a player who is positioned on the end
of the line moves along the line or to a position in the backfield; when a backfield player
moves from one position in the backfield to another or moves from a position in the backfield
to a position on the line; and when the quarterback moves from an upright position to
a position with hands under the snapper. If the quarterback were to shift in this manner
while another player is moving, a foul for illegal motion occurs if the ball were to be
snapped before both players had stopped and were motionless for at least one second prior
to the snap.
All shifts must be done in a manner that does not simulate action at the snap. Remember,
no shift is illegal unless all offensive players fail to be simultaneously stationary as required
for at least one full second prior to the snap. The manner in which players shift can be false
starts, but it cannot be an illegal shift.


7.1.7 SITUATION B: On fourth and four from A's 35-yard line, K comes to the
line in a scrimmage formation. After calling a few signals, A1 says "shift." All 11
players then make a movement. Some players move to a new position for a
scrimmage-kick formation, while four interior linemen remain in place and move
from a hands-on-thighs position to an upright position and finally to a three-point
stance. RULING: This could be ruled a false start if the covering official(s) determine
that it was designed to cause B to encroach. In judging the offensive team's
intent, the officials should consider whether players move to a new position, the
speed and abruptness of movement, down and distance and if any player pretends
to have the ball or otherwise simulate action at the snap with the start of a
play. (7-1-7; 7-2-6)

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

7-1-7
b. Any act is clearly intended to cause B to encroach.


FALSE STARTS
Rule 7-1-7 is clear as to what constitutes a false start. A false start occurs if a player commits
a shift or feigned charge simulating action at the snap, if any player’s act is clearly
intended to cause the defender(s) to encroach, or when any offensive player(s) on the line
between the snapper and the player on the end of the line, after placing his or her hand(s)
on or near the ground, moves his or her hand(s) or makes any quick movement. This last
statement is referring to that final set position prior to the snap that is assumed without a
previous shift occurring or after a previous shift has occurred.

Taking this rule to say a QB varying his cadence is a false start is frankly completely insane.

[Canned Heat]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Taking this rule to say a QB varying his cadence is a false start is frankly completely insane.

Agreed.

That rule is intended for QB head bobs and receivers or backs moving their heads or arms at the snap. Now you're going to tell us that because it's illegal for the defense to yell cadence counts to mess with the offense, it should also pertain to the offense against the defense...? Yikes.

What's next...? You're going to tell us that if the Offense calls the play on 2 or 3 instead of 1...that should be illegal? Or...say they go on ready or first sound all game and then switch to snapping on 1 towards the end of the game...illegal?

"This could be ruled a false start if the covering official(s) determine that it was designed to cause B to encroach."
True...but find me a guy that's called this. I'd be willing to bet the NFHS/FED wishes they could've rescinded the wording on this one...talk about a can of worms. So any time Team A takes a time out on 3rd or 4th down and short....coach tells all the kids on offense to sit tight...play is going to be on 3 or 4...QB tries drawing Team B for encroachment....that would be a foul in your opinion...?

Get a grip.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Taking this rule to say a QB varying his cadence is a false start is frankly completely insane.

It is a dumb situation, but unfortunately not completely insane, because Fed has adopted this ridiculously open-ended wording and failed to make a specific exception for verbal "action".

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Canned Heat

I'd be willing to bet the NFHS/FED wishes they could've rescinded the wording on this one...talk about a can of worms.

What do you mean, wishes they could've? They get a chance every year. Fed used to be very reasonable, now maybe they've gotten arrogant and don't want to admit they made a mistake when they broadened this years ago. It used to be just as open-ended but with more of a presumption of legality: "...any act clearly intended to cause an opponent to commit a foul." Now IIRC the reworded passage is missing the word "clearly".

[Canned Heat]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

What do you mean, wishes they could've? They get a chance every year. Fed used to be very reasonable, now maybe they've gotten arrogant and don't want to admit they made a mistake when they broadened this years ago. It used to be just as open-ended but with more of a presumption of legality: "...any act clearly intended to cause an opponent to commit a foul." Now IIRC the reworded passage is missing the word "clearly".

I should have worded that differently....hurrying here at work on a break. You can rest assured this was cause for a good bit of confusion and several cases of coaches or officials asking for more clarification immediately after that was released that year. Same thing (IMO) as the verbage on the Horse-Collar tackle will continually be revised...and has been annually since the rule's inception.

I do agree with your summation of the the NFHS Board and their resolution, (or lack thereof), in fixing or revising faults or possible issues every year.

[ajmc]

Is it really the language of the rule that's insane, or just the nit-picking, ridiculous interpretations that some individuals insist on applying to the language of the rule?

Is use of a hard-count drawing the defense into the NZ a foul, or "might" it be foul depending on how the hard count is delivered and what body language might be added to the delivery? Do you really need the word "clearly" to determine whether "an act was intended to cause an opponent to commit a foul"?

Why are things that have been understood and accepted for 40,50 or more years suddenly subject to so much confusion, usually because some decideds that a word, or phrase, that's been in place for decades may also be subject to a new interpretation.

No two plays, or actions, are exactly alike and our role is to understand what the rules are and what they are intended to regulate and whether whatever action we are looking at violates, or not, what a rule is in place to guard against, or permit.

Do gnats actually have eyelashes, and if so, why should I care?