Illegal motion or shift?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Official

Ok I know I've got to be over thinking this. Help me out please.
Players declared as backs can also move.

A player may not move perpendicular to the LOS (Wouldn't this be a false start and not IM though? How could you not blow a movement toward the LOS dead?

If a player in the backfield is set and shuffles a little to the left/right is this act legal?

Is a player set if they are standing motionless and picking their nose?

Unfortunately (or fortunately) there are no absolutes. Example; a school here uses "motion" a lot. Usually a back, who has been clearly set, will rise deliberately, take one step forward than pivot and go in motion one way or the other. No problem, works well.

At certain times, late in the game, 3 yards to go for an important 1st down, etc. that sequence is repeated with one difference. The back, still clearly set, EXPLODES forward for one step, pivots and goes in motion. No doubt in my mind the intent is to draw the Defense into the NZ for a cheap 5 yard penalty.

If the Defense bites, I'll flag the offense and that sequence will not be repeated. If the defense doesn't bite, I'll decide whether to flag the offense or whisper in the back's ear, after the play, that if he draws the defense into the NZ, I'm going to flag him. Usually that also stops that sequence from being repeated.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by ajmc

If the Defense bites, I'll flag the offense and that sequence will not be repeated. If the defense doesn't bite, I'll decide whether to flag the offense or whisper in the back's ear, after the play, that if he draws the defense into the NZ, I'm going to flag him. Usually that also stops that sequence from being repeated.

More rule inventions from the King of Rule Inventions. Sigh...

You should be ruling on whether the RB's actions are simulating a snap. Period. Defense's actions or reactions to this are completely immaterial. Defense is not required to risk committing a penalty to get a penalty called on the offense for an illegal act. IF he's simulating a snap - he's illegal. Blow it dead and walk 5 regardless of whether the defense jumps. If he's NOT simulating a snap, he's legal - if the defense jumps, it's 5 on the defense.

There is no rule in either ruleset about a back drawing the defense into the NZ.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

More rule inventions from the King of Rule Inventions. Sigh...

You should be ruling on whether the RB's actions are simulating a snap. Period. Defense's actions or reactions to this are completely immaterial. Defense is not required to risk committing a penalty to get a penalty called on the offense for an illegal act. IF he's simulating a snap - he's illegal. Blow it dead and walk 5 regardless of whether the defense jumps. If he's NOT simulating a snap, he's legal - if the defense jumps, it's 5 on the defense.

There is no rule in either ruleset about a back drawing the defense into the NZ.

AJMC is allowing the other team to "testify" in the form of spontaneous rxn on the question of whether the RB's action simulated action at the snap. Although that's not in either the current Fed or NCAA rules or interpret'ns, there is a ruling in NFL's book that says just that. It just depends on whether you think that's a good way to get evidence on the question of whether the movement simulated action at the snap. I think it is, and that it satisfies the rule's spirit.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

AJMC is allowing the other team to "testify" in the form of spontaneous rxn on the question of whether the RB's action simulated action at the snap. Although that's not in either the current Fed or NCAA rules or interpret'ns, there is a ruling in NFL's book that says just that. It just depends on whether you think that's a good way to get evidence on the question of whether the movement simulated action at the snap. I think it is, and that it satisfies the rule's spirit.

No, it doesn't. There are NO fouls for which Team B must do something to prove Team A fouled. Either they did or they didn't - Team B's degree of "jumpiness" and/or their steadfastness in not moving until the ball is snapped is completely irrelevant as to whether it's a foul or not. Further - what you are suggesting would mean that 2 completely identical movements by the RB would be a foul once, and not a foul later.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

No, it doesn't. There are NO fouls for which Team B must do something to prove Team A fouled. Either they did or they didn't - Team B's degree of "jumpiness" and/or their steadfastness in not moving until the ball is snapped is completely irrelevant as to whether it's a foul or not. Further - what you are suggesting would mean that 2 completely identical movements by the RB would be a foul once, and not a foul later.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. And I think there are other factors besides team B's rxn which could determine whether the same action by A1 simulates action at the snap in one case and not another.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

More rule inventions from the King of Rule Inventions. Sigh...

There is no rule in either ruleset about a back drawing the defense into the NZ.

Forgive me Mike, I presume not everyone is as anal as you seem to insist on being, nor limits any explanation to specific wording.

Not sure of your experience, so this might come as somewhat of a shock to you, but there are players and/or teams that actually work very hard at deliberately trying to mask "simulating action at the snap" so as to draw their opponent into a foul situation. You may even eventually discover that deliberate attempts to draw an opponent into a foul, thereby creating an unearned and undeserved advantage is not as rare as we'd all hope it would be.

When you've done this for a little bit, you may even learn that proactive intervention is sometimes necessary to prevent endless repetition of negative behaviors, and not everything we're expected to do is spelled out, explicitly by rule.

As for two identical instances producing different results, the part you seem to be missing is, if you handle the first instance properly, you may avoid having to deal with a second instance.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Forgive me Mike, I presume not everyone is as anal as you seem to insist on being, nor limits any explanation to specific wording.

How is it "anal" to actually call based on the rules, without making crap up?

Not sure of your experience, so this might come as somewhat of a shock to you, but there are players and/or teams that actually work very hard at deliberately trying to mask "simulating action at the snap" so as to draw their opponent into a foul situation. You may even eventually discover that deliberate attempts to draw an opponent into a foul, thereby creating an unearned and undeserved advantage is not as rare as we'd all hope it would be.

You're kind of making my point here, I agree. Your suggestion to call the foul only if they draw the defense is contrary to what you say. If a team deliberately attempts to draw an opponent into a foul, but does it legally - then the other team has fouled. (An example may be a QB varying his cadence, or even something as simply as snapping on 2 for the first time in a game). If they do it ILLEGALLY, it's a foul, regardless of whether the defense falls for it or not. If the center wiggles the ball, but the defense doesn't jump, it's still a foul. If the QB bobs his head and doesn't draw the defense, it's still a foul. Ditto the RB. Either it's a foul, or it's not. Waiting for the defense to react is not only unnecessary, it's improper.

When you've done this for a little bit,

Stop with this. You're right - you don't know me.

you may even learn that proactive intervention is sometimes necessary to prevent endless repetition of negative behaviors, and not everything we're expected to do is spelled out, explicitly by rule.

Care to give an example other than the one here? There are some VERY SMALL holes in the book, but for the most part, the rule book and/or the case book do give us a very good idea of what is expected of us. I don't think they want us doing something contrary to rule simply to proactively prevent endless repetition of negative behaviors.

As for two identical instances producing different results, the part you seem to be missing is, if you handle the first instance properly, you may avoid having to deal with a second instance.

I agree. If it was illegal when he did it the first time, even if the defense didn't jump, hopefully the offense won't continue to try it. Kind of wondering what your point was here, as it contradicts what you've said earlier. You said you would NOT flag this if the defense reacts ... which will lead to the offense trying it a 2nd (or more) time to try to illegally draw off the defense. And if you didn't flag it when you should have the first time, and they do it again, the coach is going to have every right to be upset that you didn't call it earlier, but you did now.

[ajmc]

Mike, I don't want to go where you're trying to take this discussion. If you don't understand what I'm suggesting, perhaps with time it will come, then again, maybe not.

I'm not suggesting anyone, "make anything up" or do anything, "contrary to rule" as opposed to simply suggesting there are different ways, preventive ways, to deal with some situations that don't require a flag, EVERY time. We ALL agree "for the most part, the rule book and/or the case book do give us a very good idea of what is expected of us", however common sense and judgment also pay a considerable part of the expectation of how we apply that knowledge.

What flexibility may be deemed applicable to the application of a particular circumstance does not automatically mean it must be applied to all other circumstances. If you're going to put words in my mouth, it works better if they're my words rather than what you think I meant to say. I never said, "(I) would NOT flag this if the defense reacts", which makes no sense.

The original point was simply that even appropriate movement subject to seemingly slight adjustment, may change something from appropriate to inappropriate, or illegal and could possibly be either intentional or unintentional.

[MD Longhorn]

OK, first - I must admit the typo. You said you would not flag this if the defense DOES NOT react. Typing too fast - completely my bad.

I'm not trying to take this anywhere. I'm merely making the point that the offensive actions MUST be judged on their own, and with consistency, WITHOUT input from what the defense does - to do otherwise puts the defense at an unintended disadvantage. The movement is either a foul or not, judged on it's own.

[bisonlj]

How about this situation?

Team A lineman has a slight twitch before the ball is snapped but it by itself is not something you are gonig to flag. You might talk to him and remind him he is to remain set but if you flagged that everytime you saw it, you'd have flags all night. Good judgment does come into play in several situations during a game.

Now let's say you determine that exact same twitch is what caused a B player to encroach. Would you penalize B for encroachment or would you penalize A for a false start?