Illegal motion or shift?
 

Indiana - Michigan game... quarterback in shotgun - begins walking towards the LOS to go under center - never stops - takes the snap direct from center and continues moving foward with a sneak... penalty?

Illegal motion.

I did not see the play, but are you saying the QB took a snap and never stopped for a moment? That would seem hard to do and successfully take a snap.

Peace

If he stopped but for less than a second -- which is more likely as I picture this play -- you'd have an illegal shift.

I suspect you're right, but given the OP as written, IM.

Had this actually happen in a JV game a few weeks back. Flanker went in motion and got reset....LB shifted to the outside. QB came forward and was still creeping forward when he got the ball...no 1 second pause or getting set. Tried QB sneak up middle. Flag at snap.

Play was on 4th down...Team A didn't get 1st down...B declined penalty and took ball, tournover on downs.

Not as hard as you think. In fact it used to be common for a player to thrust hands under center for the ball just as the snap was made. Combining that with foot motion would be simple if it wasn't fast motion. Wouldn't surprise me at all if this sort of move was common now in Canadian football, where it's legal.

I am sure it happened that way, just have not seen it to where I can imagine that happening. But if it did then a foul is appropriate. Again, for me this would have been a first.

Peace

2008 NFHS Football Rules Page 90 POE section

MOTION
Legal motion at the snap is allowed by rule as an offensive maneuver. Only one offensive
player – either a back or a player on the end of the line, but no interior linemen – may be in
motion at the snap, and then, only if such motion is not toward his opponent’s goal line.
Except for the quarterback under the snapper, the player in motion who started from a
position not clearly behind the line of scrimmage and did not establish himself as a back by
stopping for at least one full second, must be at least 5 yards behind the line of scrimmage
at the snap. Either a player legally in the backfield or a player legally on the end of the line
of scrimmage may go in motion if these previous requirements are satisfied.
Illegal motion occurs whenever the quarterback steps forward placing his or her hands
under the snapper at the instant the snap is made. If the quarterback places his or her
hands under the snapper without stepping forward, it will be a shift and not motion. If the
quarterback steps forward and places their hands under the snapper and the snap is made
after they are motionless for one second, the action is legal. If the quarterback with his
hands under the snapper were to step backward with one foot as the snap is made, this
action would be legal provided no teammate is also moving at the snap. Illegal motion
occurs when any player in motion is moving toward the opponent’s goal line at the snap. It
is also illegal motion if an end goes in motion and is not at least 5-yards behind the line at
the snap unless he or she stops and positions himself or herself as a back for at least one
full second prior to the snap.
A player’s motion movement can be such that his or her head and body are facing the
sideline to which he or she is moving, or a sliding movement while he or she is facing the
opponent’s goal line, or the direction of his or her motion may change several times before
the snap. Illegal motion is always a live ball foul occurring at the snap resulting in a 5-yard
penalty from the previous spot.

In NCAA, a shift involves two or more players, so assuming this is the only player moving, I think it would either be illegal motion or nothing.

Really? So if you have one player "shift," set for less than a second, and the ball is snapped, you have no foul?

Do you meant if you have one player go in motion (one player cannot shift)? He didn't say you'd have no foul - you'd have illegal motion.

ILLEGAL MOTION, SHIFT
7.2.7 SITUATION: The quarterback by voice command has signaled his teammates
to assume a set position while he is standing upright behind the center.
The quarterback steps forward and places his hands under the center to receive
the snap: (a) at the instant the snap is made; or (b) which is made after he is
motionless, but prior to one second having elapsed; or (c) which is made after he
is motionless for one second; or (d) which is made after he is motionless for one
second, but while he is stepping backward with one foot as the snap is made.
RULING: In (a), it is illegal motion. In (b), it is an illegal shift. In (c), it is legal. In
(d), it is legal unless a teammate is also in motion at the snap. COMMENT: If the
quarterback drops his hands under the snapper without stepping forward, it is a
shift and not motion. (2-39; 7-2-6)

Are you making a point, or just copying stuff?

There is no rule 7.2.7 nor AR 7.2.7.

He quoted a NF case play to answer an NCAA question.

I guess that's my question then: in NCAA you can have a flag for illegal motion when no player is moving?

Pretty sure the guy who posted about the jv game uses fed rules.
:rolleyes:

I was answering him and adding what the NFHS rules are on this.
I know it (illegal shift on QB) seldom gets called.

Welpe posted a point about NCAA in post #10, and the next 3 posts addressed that issue. You then inserted a NF case play as if it were part of that conversation, prompting mbcrowder's question.

Illegal shift is rarely called on QB's because they hardly ever shift illegally. Of course, your "thing" is that officials don't throw enough flags, so I don't expect this point to have much impact.

So, in a post about an NCAA game amid questions about NCAA rules, a single poster mentioned that this happened to him in a FED game, in post 6. You answer him in post 9. Then for some reason you are responding to him again, hours later?

Face it - you just weren't paying attention. Happens to everyone. "oops - my bad" would have gone over much better than rolling your eyes at us.

Maybe we'll be treated to claims that NCAA officials don't have enough flags either. ;)

On goal line and short yardage the whole team isn't set for a full second and the snap is off and the play is run and chains are moved. That seldom gets called. Happens a bunch!!!!!!!:rolleyes:

NCAA officials never call butt blocking either! What's wrong with them? :rolleyes:

mbyron, as I understand it, if the QB stops, he is legal since he was not in motion and his movement was not considered a shift. I will need to dig into the books a little more to see if there's an interp.

you never throw enough against the opponents of MY team, but you always throw too many ON my team!!:D

They are in my games.....any night of the week. Lowly HS games, of course.

I jumped my own gun...the chains are probably being set down or moved. If it's goal line territory with 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th, and goal...there's only the box (officially called: down marker box) at that point...unless the offense has a chance to gain 1st down close to the end zone. Even our lower level coaches will be screaming for a call if it's evident the team wasn't set.

Ok I know I've got to be over thinking this. Help me out please.

Offensive players cannot move once they put their hands on the ground they are "married" to the ground.

Players on the end of the line can move after placing a hand on the ground. Players declared as backs can also move.

If a player is in motion at the snap he must be 5 yards behind the LOS.

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?

Once an interior linemen places his hand on or near the ground, he can't lift it.

No. If he's not a back and goes in motion, he must be at least 5 yards behind to LOS.

He can't be moving toward the LOS when the ball is snapped.

Yes.

There's no requirement that the player be motionless. He just has to be set and not making any movement that simulates action at the snap.

thanks I truly appreciate it.

So... you've never seen an RB line up, and then go in motion a couple of steps forward first, and then out to the side? Happens all the time, and not IM or False Start - totally legal as long as they are not moving forward AT THE SNAP, and did not simulate the start of the play when he went in motion.

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.

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.

I think you have to substitute the word "is" for "goes" above. Consider a player who's set just barely in the backfield and goes in motion parallel to the LOS. Suppose that at the snap the closest OL to him has body parts closer to his team's end line than some of his own body parts. He may have been a back when he went in motion, but by getting near that player is no longer a back.

But I doubt any of you would give any more than a warning on this one. Seems if the player is already well along his way in motion, he's not going to confuse the defense as to whether he's on the line or in the backfield, so I think the spirit of the rule is served without att'n to that detail.

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.

That's not what the rule says. Here's (most of) 7-2-7:

Except for the player “under
the snapper,” as outlined in Article 3, the player in motion shall be at least 5 yards
behind his line of scrimmage at the snap if he started from any position not clearly
behind the line and did not establish himself as a back by stopping for at least
one full second while no part of his body is breaking the vertical plane through
the waistline of his nearest teammate who is on the line of scrimmage.

Nothing in the rules supports the imaginary idea that a back can lose his status as a back by going in motion. And if he's moving toward the NZ at the snap, he's still a back but the motion is illegal.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Passing on the first situation and penalizing A on the second is damn good officiating in my opinion.

Look at the definition of "offensive back" and tell me a player's status can't change depending on which teammate on the line of scrimmage he's closest to. Now tell me why if he's in motion he couldn't be closest to A1 when he started and A2 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.

I rest my case.

Stick to softball.

You are the perfect robot for that sport...

"Must do only what the book says"....

"Must not use my god given common sense to help make a judgement"....

"Must keep my body stiff and rigid while on the field"....

i hope you really don't officiate this way. Your games must take over three hours to complete.

It is not being a robot, it is applying the rules consistently. Simply calling something common sense doesn't make it so. It is not common sense to intentionally rule on the same exact action differently between instances, which is what you are advocating. It is not common sense to insist that the defense must risk penalty to have penalties called correctly on the offense.

It's not about "must only do what the book says" - it's about fairness and objectivity.

I bet you do this frequently without so much as a 2nd thought. For instance, the surrounding circumstances could be such as to change intentional grounding into no call for the exact same throw and disposition of the other players. Same for USC, where an action might be interpreted as friendly or mean-spirited, depending. You could have the exact same collision under different circumstances be pass interference on one player, the same on his opponent, or a nothing.

On first pass reading this, I'm hearing, "You might rule differently on two identical plays if they are not identical..." !!! But I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and ask for a specific example of what you really mean.

I'll give you an example. B45 gives A32 a small push after the ball is dead. A32 stumbles but doesn't fall down. There is nothing excessive or vicious about the contact.

Two different contexts:
(a) It's the first play of the game
(b) It's been a very chippy game and B45 is the primary instigator on several plays. You've already talked to him twice and have asked him stop contacting opponents after the ball is dead.

Same exact plays. Different context.

Same exact plays, - if there is nothing excessive or vicious about the contact, I don't care about the context, I've got nothing. If the problem escalates into something excessive/vicious, I've got a flag EVERY time.

Same way with the OL flinching. If he moves, I've got a flag EVERY time. The reaction of the defense, fans, coaches, other officials, clock operator, Santa Claus, etc., never figures into it.

It's 54-0. Final kneel down :eek: play of the game.

A62 flinches prior to the snap. Nobody moves (after all it's the last kneel down of the game... this baby is over....)
are you are going to flag A62 for a false start?

If you are, then you are true to your word....leaving people wondering "who in tarnation taught this guy to officiate?"

If you are not, then you are not true to your word and actually agree with many on here who say "not every time".

Again, what people think of me has never been a motivation for what I do. If the OL false starts and the game is 100-0, I'm throwing my flag.

Solid :rolleyes:

Naw, you're right. If it's that bad, I'm keeping my flag in my pocket. But still, Mike has a point - There are some fouls you just can't pick and choose. You have to admit come game time, if ole 78 flinches you're not gonna let that go - that's a fla thag every time (except on the last play of a blowout :) )
Same way with the dead ball push - if it's not excessive or viscious, you're not gonna throw a flag on that ever - maybe a word - "Quit that", but no flag. If it gets escessive or viscious, you're not worried about how many times you've warned him, you've got a flag every time. Right or Wrong?

I liked Okie Dokie better.;)

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.

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.

As a parent, I get what you're saying. Stop bugging your sister. Stop bugging your sister!!!! Then, at the slightest bugging of the sister, you're grounded.

As officials, we are not parents. If this non-excessive non-vicious contact is not a foul, it's not a foul. It may draw a warning, but it's not a foul the first time, the 3rd time, or the 10th time. If he's not fouling, why are you flagging this after a warning. Surely your warning isn't "Don't do that again". It should be something less specific like, "Cut it out" or "Watch it". It's not like the first 9 times were 1/10 of a foul each, so the 10th is a foul.

If the contact IS a foul, it's a foul on the first play and a foul on the last play.

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

+1

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!

The what play? Describe please?

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.

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

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."

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

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.

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)

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.

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".

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.

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?

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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

No one listened to me when we were 10-0 or 9-2 either.

I got better things to do,my mom died last week at 75 and my dad 77 is dying in the hospital right now. I was off to spend the day with him. I come to these sites for a little break, thanks for making me feel so good, guys.

Sorry for your loss...

But if no one is listening to you ... maybe you'd benefit from going to a referee clinic. Seems you often read a single rule, pull it out of context with the rest of the rules, and then try to stretch it to where it's unrecognizable. There's no need for that - as a whole, the rules (generally!!!) make sense. It seems your TRYING to make rules support an incorrect position, rather than simply trying to learn what the right call would be in a given situation.

Sorry to hear that BJ.

That's because you have no freaking clue as to what you are talking about.

On the FED site you bash the guys that work your games, and tell everyone who will listen that you have tons of e-mails from officials that say you are right.

We'll, you are not. You just like to argue, plain and simple. You cut and paste rules leaving out information that blows your claims out of the water....

For example.. I have yet to see you paste this from the Case Book... very pertinent to what is being discussed...

COMMENT: Football has been and always will be a game of deception and trickery involving multiple shifts, unusual formations and creative plays. However, actions or verbiage designed to confuse the defense into believing there is problem and a snap isn’t imminent is beyond the scope of sportsmanship and is illegal.

Altering the cadence doesn't fall into this, nor does the possum play....

Years of training, game experience, and unbiased observations give us the expertise to be able to determine this.

You, on another hand, hit every board possible to try to stir the pot. You pull excerpts from the book that fit your argument. You're right, we're wrong, period.

You know, we battle on here frequently. Some of us commenting to you on this thread probably wouldn't speak to each other before or after a game, but we'd darn sure have each other's backs while on the field working together.

We put our time in understanding the rules and all the nuances that make this a great game to officiate. We don't cut and paste every rule that we discuss, because we don't need to.

I have sympathy for your loss...........

But your posting is the same as it usually is, and that's why you got what you got from us.

NFHS Forum: According to 7.1.7.b

Some officials have agreed with me.

Just proving that some officials, like you, can't grasp the concept that the movement you describe may or may not constitute simulating action at the snap. Just saying "they moved" does not necessarily mean they false started. There is no prohibition on the offense beginning legal shifts or motions during a snap cadence, unless of course in the opinion of the covering official, that motion constitutes simulating action at the snap. So your play may or may not be a false start because it depends on how the players move, not just "because" they moved and the cadence is different.

As a side note I find your signature line very revealing considering how you go about making your arguments.

Well, DUH!


If the offensive team executes a shift in such a manner that simulates action at the snap,
the foul is a false start and not an illegal shift. The manner in which offensive players execute
shifts or go in motion can be fouls for a false start, but never for illegal shifts.
When linemen or backs initially set in an upright position or hands-on-knees position and
then drop into a three- or four-point stance for their final position, the action results in a
false start if it is done in a manner that simulates action at the snap. Such action must be
slow and deliberate.
When the quarterback drops from an upright position to a position under the snapper, his
or her action must not simulate action at the snap or a false start has occurred. When the
quarterback withdraws his or her hands from underneath the snapper to go in motion, their
action must be deliberate and done in a manner not simulating the start of a down, and is
considered a shift. When the quarterback, while having his or her hands underneath the
snapper uses jerky movements of their head, arms or body while verbally sounding his signals
commits a foul. This action simulating a snap is a foul for a false start. Once the interior
linemen have assumed their final pre-snap set position on the line between the snapper
and the player on the end of the line and having placed their hand(s) on or near the
ground, they are locked into that position and may not move their hand(s) or make any
quick movement without committing a false start.
Remember the snapper is not restricted as are the interior linemen in regard to the lifting
of a hand(s) placed on or near the ground. A false start is always a dead-ball foul occurring
before the snap and resulting in a 5-yard penalty from the succeeding spot.

I found this...

After a huddle or shift all 11 players of A shall come to an absolute stop and shall remain stationary simultaneously without movement of hands, feet, head, or body for at least one second before the snap (7-2-6).

bump

You really think guys should call this as it is written?

No one calls it that way! LOL!!

I agree with you 100% BTW!

Never worked in Ohio, but in Indiana, New Jersey both Upstate and Downstate NY, that's the way it's allways called.