Illegal Motion?

[AndrewMcCarthy]

JMN-

When it says "only if such motion" it's referring to motion at the snap.

[JMN]

Andrew,

I reread it and it does say "such motion" which I guess refers back to the previous mention in the sentence. Right?

If so, then a back could position himself 20 yards behind the LOS and begin motion towards B's goal line. As long as he didn't appear to be false starting and if he turned and ran parallel with the line (say 5 yards behind his LOS) at the time of the snap, this would be legal?

Sounds weird to me.

I guess the question on the rule is whether the "such motion" clause refers to "at the time of snap" or anytime during his motion. My take would be anytime he is in motion he can't run towards B's goal line. That's the way I understand it.

Anyone else care to clarify?

[Derock1986]

Originally posted by JMN
Andrew,

I reread it and it does say "such motion" which I guess refers back to the previous mention in the sentence. Right?

If so, then a back could position himself 20 yards behind the LOS and begin motion towards B's goal line. As long as he didn't appear to be false starting and if he turned and ran parallel with the line (say 5 yards behind his LOS) at the time of the snap, this would be legal?

Sounds weird to me.

I guess the question on the rule is whether the "such motion" clause refers to "at the time of snap" or anytime during his motion. My take would be anytime he is in motion he can't run towards B's goal line. That's the way I understand it.

Anyone else care to clarify?

I found my NFHS Rule Book!!!!

Rule 7 - Not more than one A player may be in motion at the snap and then only if such motion is not toward's B's goal line.

Aboselli,
Not to dig up old posts but just wanted to say check out rule 7-5-10a. It talks about pass interference and players entitlement to maintain a position on the field.

[James Neil]

Originally posted by JMN
Andrew,

I reread it and it does say "such motion" which I guess refers back to the previous mention in the sentence. Right?

If so, then a back could position himself 20 yards behind the LOS and begin motion towards B's goal line. As long as he didn't appear to be false starting and if he turned and ran parallel with the line (say 5 yards behind his LOS) at the time of the snap, this would be legal?

Sounds weird to me.

I guess the question on the rule is whether the "such motion" clause refers to "at the time of snap" or anytime during his motion. My take would be anytime he is in motion he can't run towards B's goal line. That's the way I understand it.



Anyone else care to clarify?

A breaks it's huddle and a back positions himself 20 yards behind the LOS and sets .Then he starts walking toward the line , after 10 yards, he slowly turns and continues parallel to his LOS at a trot without making any movement that would simulate action at the snap . Ball is snapped; the back turns up field, runs his route, trips and falls, and eats grass. No harm No foul 8^)
This is only a motion foul if he's moving toward his LOS at the snap.

[AndrewMcCarthy]

You'll see quite often a play where A will send the TE in motion. He moves backwards and resets to establish himself as a back while the wideout who was off the line will move forward and set to establish himself on the line. After they are both set, the TE will go in motion.

No false start on the wideout in this case, providing he hasn't simulated action at the snap.

Watch the bowl game tonight or tomorrow and you'll see the motion man move forward- just not at the snap.

[Matt-MI]

Derock with a rulebook!?!?

These guys will turn you into a rule fanatic yet.

[ABoselli]

Aboselli,
Not to dig up old posts but just wanted to say check out rule 7-5-10a. It talks about pass interference and players entitlement to maintain a position on the field.

OK, I don't have my book here at home so I'll have to look tomorrow at work.

Attach one of those chains with a wheel rim hooked to it on your rule book so you don't lose it again - like the restroom key at a gas station.

[mikesears]

Originally posted by JMN
Andrew,

I reread it and it does say "such motion" which I guess refers back to the previous mention in the sentence. Right?

If so, then a back could position himself 20 yards behind the LOS and begin motion towards B's goal line. As long as he didn't appear to be false starting and if he turned and ran parallel with the line (say 5 yards behind his LOS) at the time of the snap, this would be legal?

Sounds weird to me.

I guess the question on the rule is whether the "such motion" clause refers to "at the time of snap" or anytime during his motion. My take would be anytime he is in motion he can't run towards B's goal line. That's the way I understand it.

Anyone else care to clarify?

Here is the rule
"Only one A player may be in motion at the snap and then only if such motion is not toward his opponent's goal line. . . ."

By definition, the word "such" has to refer to a specific situation and the only situation specifally mentioned in the sentence is motion at the snap.


I would hope that if the NF were trying to say that motion isn't allowed to be forward, that they would come directly out and say it. Something like:
Motion
1. Only one A player may be in motion at the snap.
2. A player in motion may not move toward his opponents goal line.

I think you agree that "such" has to refer to something specific.

As added support (although admittedly a little weak), when does motion become a foul? Simultaneous with the snap, right? The snap is what makes motion forward illegal.

The play as your described it would be legal (as far as I can tell).

I'm open to hear anyone else interpretation of this as well. Around my area, I don't see teams using motion toward the line of scrimmage.

Thanks!





[Edited by mikesears on Jan 3rd, 2003 at 07:41 AM]

[ABoselli]

....7-5-10a. It talks about pass interference and players entitlement to maintain a position on the field.

It does? Are we looking at the same book? Mine reads..

..Art. 10...It is forward pass interference if:
a. Any player of A or B who is beyond the neutral zone interferes with an eligible opponents opportunity to move toward, catch or bat the pass

Where's the part about being entitled to maintain a position on the field? As I recall I kep repeating the phrase 'move toward, catch or bat the pass'. Whether you're standing there or moving and you do that, interference has occurred. Maybe yours reads different?

[JMN]

Guys,

Appreciate the clarification on the motion thing.

It does definitely say "such" and as I mentioned before, it does connect to "at the snap". And, we've all seen it a thousand times when a player moves towards the line.

My mind just goes to arena football and I picture a back with a running start towards the line. I know, NFHS rule would not allow this because it is at the snap, but that's the mental picture I get.


Enough on this one.

[Derock1986]

Originally posted by ABoselli
....7-5-10a. It talks about pass interference and players entitlement to maintain a position on the field.

It does? Are we looking at the same book? Mine reads..

..Art. 10...It is forward pass interference if:
a. Any player of A or B who is beyond the neutral zone interferes with an eligible opponents opportunity to move toward, catch or bat the pass

Where's the part about being entitled to maintain a position on the field? As I recall I kep repeating the phrase 'move toward, catch or bat the pass'. Whether you're standing there or moving and you do that, interference has occurred. Maybe yours reads different?

The book I'm referencing is the NFHS simplified and illustrated rule book. It has an illustration 7-5-10a that shows a defender (B50) running into a receiver (A85) who is just standing there. Underneath the illustration it reads, "The contact by No. 50 constitutes defensive pass interference. No. 85 is entitled to his position and is entitled to maintain that position on the field."

This illustration uses the defender as the offender but certainly the same rule would apply to the offensive player in an offensive pass interference situation.

[AndrewMcCarthy]

The play illustrated clearly shows the A player, 85, looking back towards the ball while B, 50, not looking for the ball, plows into him.

This isn't the same play we debated, ad nausium, without your rule book, a couple weeks ago.

By the way- this book you've discovered isn't the rule book- it's used WITH the rule book. Keep looking for the one that says "Rules Book" on the cover. Perhaps it's close to the location where you've uncovered this one.

[ABoselli]

You know what they say about 'a little knowledge'.....

[Derock1986]

Originally posted by AndrewMcCarthy
The play illustrated clearly shows the A player, 85, looking back towards the ball while B, 50, not looking for the ball, plows into him.

This isn't the same play we debated, ad nausium, without your rule book, a couple weeks ago.

By the way- this book you've discovered isn't the rule book- it's used WITH the rule book. Keep looking for the one that says "Rules Book" on the cover. Perhaps it's close to the location where you've uncovered this one.

OK, I opened my other eye and I even put on my special glasses--I do clearly see the A player, 85, looking back towards the ball while B, 50, not looking for the ball, plows into him.

However, the illustration makes no mention of "not looking for the ball" as the reason for PI BUT instead, it talks about A player, 85, entitled to his position on the field.

The play we debated on a couple of weeks ago, I stated that a player (A or B) has a right to maintain a position on the field when a player (A or B) runs into him in an attempt to receive a pass. In my view, this illustration supports my statement.

[ABoselli]

...when a player (A or B) runs into him in an attempt to receive a pass

So, to be clear, in your opinion, in this illustration, the defender is moving there in an attempt to receive a pass (or, as the rule book states, to move toward, catch or bat the pass)? If that's what you think, then you are absolutely correct.

However, if you don't think he's plowing into him because he's in the defenders way while the defender is trying to move toward, catch, or bat the pass, then it is interference. I think it's pretty clear he's not trying to do any of the three.