Is it true?

[rwest]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Which is exactly not the same as lining up in the neutral zone.

Prior to the ready for play signal, if the Defensive Tackle is lined up in the neutral zone and does not move, is it encroachment once the ready for play has been signaled AND the center has placed their hands on the ball?

[bkdow]

I want to know if there is any official out there that calls this exactly by the book at any level? This is where I see it (a lot), DB or WR wanders from their huddle, Center is already on the ball and but the QB is not under center as he is waiting for the receivers to get into position. At least 10-15 times a night one of the two players wanders across the neutral zone and then backs up into position.

Are you telling me that you would kill the play and penalize 5 yards?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by rwest

Prior to the ready for play signal, if the Defensive Tackle is lined up in the neutral zone and does not move, is it encroachment once the ready for play has been signaled AND the center has placed their hands on the ball?

Already answered, but no. Lined up in the NZ is a foul at the snap.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Already answered, but no. Lined up in the NZ is a foul at the snap.

Quite technically it is a foul immediately, not at the snap but few officials will call it that way (which is a good thing).

[cmathews]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Quite technically it is a foul immediately, not at the snap but few officials will call it that way (which is a good thing).

it is a foul when it happens, not at the snap, and why would you wait for the snap to call it??? assuming you would call it at the snap, I understand that if it isn't big it may not be called...but if it is big enough to call, why on earth would you wait for the snap???

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by cmathews

it is a foul when it happens, not at the snap, and why would you wait for the snap to call it??? assuming you would call it at the snap, I understand that if it isn't big it may not be called...but if it is big enough to call, why on earth would you wait for the snap???

Are you going to flag a receiver for entering into the neutral zone when he is lining up or are you going to at least give him a chance to correct himself?

[cmathews]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Are you going to flag a receiver for entering into the neutral zone when he is lining up or are you going to at least give him a chance to correct himself?

If I am going to flag it, it will be before the snap...if he wanders out, looks in and corrects himself I am going to let it go..but if it warrants a flag it will happen before the snap...receivers get more leeway for sure...

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by cmathews

If I am going to flag it, it will be before the snap...if he wanders out, looks in and corrects himself I am going to let it go..but if it warrants a flag it will happen before the snap...receivers get more leeway for sure...

Glad to hear, I think we are more or less in agreement then.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Quite technically it is a foul immediately, not at the snap but few officials will call it that way (which is a good thing).

Well, we all know I don't call FED, but I was basing what I said on what had been said multiple times here when this question comes up. I thought the interp was that crossing INTO the NZ after the snapper and QB are ready is an immediate foul ... but if they are already there when the snapper and QB are ready, they can still back up before the snap. Thought that was the actual rule, not just the way it's called.

[cmathews]

Following the ready-for-play and after the snapper has placed his
hand(s) on the ball, encroachment occurs if any other player breaks the plane of

the neutral zone
and lining up there first qualifies as breaking it after the snapper has his hands on the ball


that is the fed rule....the NCAA rule is different....

[Official]

Ok so a lot of you guys are giving different explanations: I'm confused.

FOUL AT THE SNAP: If after the ready for play AND after the center has placed his hand on the ball if B is in the NZ at the snap. No foul if defense gets back???

FOUL BEFORE THE SNAP: If B crosses into the NZ after the ready for play AND after the center has placed his hand on the B.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Official

Ok so a lot of you guys are giving different explanations: I'm confused.

FOUL AT THE SNAP: If after the ready for play AND after the center has placed his hand on the ball if B is in the NZ at the snap. No foul if defense gets back???

FOUL BEFORE THE SNAP: If B crosses into the NZ after the ready for play AND after the center has placed his hand on the B.

Technically if any player is in the neutral zone any time after the RFP and the snapper places his hands on the ball, it is encroachment. What everyone is discussion is how technically you enforce that. For example, if a defender comes out to cover a receiver and he happens to get into the neutral zone, you don't nitpick it. But if he's still there at the snap, you kill the play and flag it. If a defensive lineman takes a position on his side of the NZ but jumps into the NZ before the snap, you will kill the play immediately and flag it. There is no difference in the rules in your two situations but the philosophy and application may be different.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Official

Ok so a lot of you guys are giving different explanations: I'm confused.

FOUL AT THE SNAP: If after the ready for play AND after the center has placed his hand on the ball if B is in the NZ at the snap. No foul if defense gets back???

FOUL BEFORE THE SNAP: If B crosses into the NZ after the ready for play AND after the center has placed his hand on the B.

Your confusion is not caused by the rules, it's a question of understanding how, and when, to apply the rules. The over arching umbrella covering all rules is the question of "Advantage/Disadvantage", which as you gain experience will seem a clearer issue.

Rules are simply the verbiage expressing the intent of how a game is supposed to be played. As you will inevitably understand, selecting the appropriate and proper verbiage to express an intention is at best an inaccurate art form.

How tightly, or technically, you apply specific rules depends substantially on the skill level of the participants, the tightness of the contest and the level of competition. The primary objective is to prevent one team (or player) from gaining an unfair advantage over the opponent. The emphasis and focus on the word unfair is deliberate, as the heart of this game is to take advantage of the opponents weaknesses.

"Consistency" is a word bandied about in relation to officiating. The primary level of consistency required is limited to "within the game you are working", whereas how you may react or respond to a particular action is the same at the beginning, during and through, up to the end and it is applied equally to both teams.

Beyond "that game" consistency applies to how YOU may respond to similar situations in other games, then how YOU may respond in similar situations to the manner and extent others, in your universe, respond to those situations, but the primary focus remains with how consistent YOU are within THAT game you are currently working.

How tightly/technically YOU decide to work is YOUR decision, and you will have all sorts of advice and guidance available helping/hindering you in making those decisions. You will see levels that work well and levels that work poorly and you should consider both in formulating your own standards.

Flexibility and a willingness to adjust are key as circumstances and situations will never be static. There are very few "silver bullets" and one size NEVER fits all.

[GoodwillRef]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Already answered, but no. Lined up in the NZ is a foul at the snap.

You are playing NCAA rules in Texas...NFHS rule say this is a dead ball foul.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by GoodwillRef

You are playing NCAA rules in Texas...NFHS rule say this is a dead ball foul.

I know what my rules state... I thought I was answering as others have before regarding the FED rule (in fact, one before me DID answer that way). Apparently, the rule as given to me here before is wrong, although the interp isn't.