Illegal motion or shift?

[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.

[bigjohn]

The play is designed JUST to draw B into the NZ, How could it not be what the FED wanted in7-1-7b?


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

The play is designed JUST to draw B into the NZ, How could it not be what the FED wanted in7-1-7b?

Please tell me you're not an official...

"This could be ruled a false start if the covering official(s) determine
that it was designed to cause B to encroach"

If it was "what the FED wanted", this case play would simply say False Start.

The qualifier is because it is the MOVEMENT that matters. IF officials determine the MOVEMENT (sharp, abrupt, startling, whatever) is designed to draw the defense offsides, it's a false start. Simply running a play with no intent to snap the ball is NOT a false start, and you'd be drummed out of any association for calling it as such.

[asdf]

You suprised at this?

This guy has been bashing officials and making up his own interpretations for years.

You'd think an assistant coach on an 0-7 team that has been outscored
112-6 in the last two weeks would have something better to do.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by asdf

You suprised at this?

This guy has been bashing officials and making up his own interpretations for years.

You'd think an assistant coach on an 0-7 team that has been outscored
112-6 in the last two weeks would have something better to do.

I don't know the guy at all. This explains a LOT (and not just here in this thread.)