Illegal motion or shift?

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 I'd be willing to bet the NFHS/FED wishes they could've rescinded the wording on this one...talk about a can of worms.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I'd be willing to bet the NFHS/FED wishes they could've rescinded the wording on this one...talk about a can of worms.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

[Mike L]

Cadence or volume changes are not considered "false starts" because a false start requires some sort of movement. Speaking by itself, no matter how loud or varied, does not constitute movement in the football world.
For the exceptionally anal regarding this, perhaps 7-1-7 b should be removed or modified. But for us normal folks, we understand what it means.

[bigjohn]

I am not saying hard count and on 2 should be a foul. I am saying there are officials that say they can't call anything 7-1-7b because if you did you would have to include such staples of the game as on two and hard count.

They will not call the snap down punt or possum play because in their mind it is no different than going on two. The FED says any quick movement designed to cause B to encroach is afoul. CALL IT!

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

I am not saying hard count and on 2 should be a foul. I am saying there are officials that say they can't call anything 7-1-7b because if you did you would have to include such staples of the game as on two and hard count.

They will not call the snap down punt or possum play because in their mind it is no different than going on two. The FED says any quick movement designed to cause B to encroach is afoul. CALL IT!

The play you are calling the possum play is not a foul. That you think it is, is frankly just as insane as the other post. Simply not snapping the ball or intending to snap the ball is not a foul.