Illegal motion or shift?

[bigjohn]

How about 7-1-7b

Hut-Hut-HutHutt!



b. Any act is clearly intended to cause B to encroach.


I have heard many officials say that snap count falls under this but I say, snap count is not an ACT. It is verbiage, now if the team runs a play that is just snap counts and no snap, that ACT was clearly designed to draw B into the NZ.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

How about 7-1-7b

Hut-Hut-HutHutt!

b. Any act is clearly intended to cause B to encroach.

I have heard many officials say that snap count falls under this but I say, snap count is not an ACT. It is verbiage, now if the team runs a play that is just snap counts and no snap, that ACT was clearly designed to draw B into the NZ.

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.

[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

How about 7-1-7b

Hut-Hut-HutHutt!



b. Any act is clearly intended to cause B to encroach.


I have heard many officials say that snap count falls under this

You've heard this from very poor officials. This is legal in ALL levels.