Team A is set just before the snap, A2 (RB), is 5 yards behind the neutral zone in a standing position. A1 (QB) sends A2 in motion. A2 takes 3 steps forward and turns and runs parallel to the line of scrimmage and then turns up field after the ball is snapped.

Legal or illegal--ruling???

Legal per Rule 7-2-7.

Don't have my rule book. What exactly does rule 7-2-7 say?

I have a dead ball false start on A2.

I thought I read under NFHS that after A is set, any movement by A towards B's goal line prior to the ball being snapped is a foul.

Anyone else has any input/clarification?

If he is simulating the start of a play, its a false start. He can move forward but he cannot be going toward B's goal line at the snap. That's illegal motion.

If he made three deliberate steps forward and then went sideways (parallel to the LOS) that's fine. If he shot out of his stance toward the B goal line, that's a false start.

Under NCAA rules also, simply moving forward (by a back) is not a false start. As has been described, if it simulates the start of a play, it is a false start. Rule of thumb - If you think the play was starting, it was a false start. Many fans (and coaches) think a back can "reset" but that is BS. If he missed the snap count, he gets flagged.

The short of 7-2-7: 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.

If you're figuring it's a false start, it's not per 7-1-7a: It is a false start if a shift or feigned charge simulates action at the snap.

I'm in agreement with A-Boss and TXMike on this one- he did not simulate action at the snap.

In Canada:

Legal play, providing that A2 is not withing 1 yard of the LS at the snap of the ball. If so: illegal procedure, but let the play develop, (ie: not a play where the play is whistled down immediately), unless he is within a yard of the LS *and* within the "close line play area", then it is a whistled down play.

Close line play area: a rectangle two yards in front of the LS to two yards behind the LS, and from tackle to tackle.

Mike

(I'm learning...)

So you're saying if he takes a hard burst forward its a false start but if he casually moves forward and then goes sideways its ok?

What if he takes a hard burst forward and then goes sideways is that ok or a false start or illegal motion???

Also, what is defined as "simulating" the start of a play. I always thought after becoming set, any forward movement by A is simulating the start of the play. If A is moving forward, are they not considered moving towards B's goal line???

<i>Also, what is defined as "simulating" the start of a play. I always thought after becoming set, any forward movement by A is simulating the start of the play. If A is moving forward, are they not considered moving towards B's goal line??? </i>

If you stand up, trot three steps forward and then turn and run parallel to the LOS, I don't think this qualifies as simulating the start of a play. Players usually explode out of their stances at the start of a play. Any movement by A toward the B goal line <i>at the snap</i> is definitely illegal motion. When players miss the snap count and you see that quick flinch, they have simulated the start of the play.

I'm having a hard time understanding the difference between a player trotting, walking, stumbling, or exploding forward. It all seems to be the same to me in relation to moving towards B's goal line.

Because you are hung up on the "moving towards B's goal line" as if that was an automatic indicator of a false start. A QB who misses the snap count and jerks his hands back, starting to leave before the ball is snapped, is guilty of a false start. He was not moving toward B. A RB who blasts off sideways before the ball is snapped because he knows he is running a toss play, is guilty of a false start.

What are you gonna do about this? The QB is under center. The team is set. He sees something in the defense that he wants to alert the tailback to so he slowly comes out from under center and moves back to the tailback to whisper in his earhole. When he starts walking back to his original position, has he false started?

Players are allowed to shift before the snap (except interior linemen [My Words-not rulebook words] who have put their hand(s) at or near the ground).

The responsability for avoiding simulating action at the snap lies clearly with the offense. If you believe the movement forward was as a result of missing the snap count, it is a false start. If a player moves forward and it appears to be a designed move and doesn't simulate action at the snap, it is a shift. In the context of this discussion, a shift is illegal only is if it headed forward at the time the ball is snapped.

Never thought about that but I definitely see your point! Thanks!

and remember illegal motion is a live ball foul

Guys,

I agree with you on a no call on this and I'm not trying to be an anal rules ref. However, help me reconcile the play and your comments with the NFHS rules. (or show me the error in my thinking).

#1 - The rule book in 7-2-7 states "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." If this is true, Andrew, wouldn't this 'technically' be a foul since A was initially moving toward B's goal line while he was in motion? Again, I'm not saying we should call this, I'm just trying to make sure that I understand the rule as written. According to the rule, it seems to me (by strict interpretation of the rules) that this motion would be illegal.

#2 - Mike Sears. I agree that players are allowed to shift before the snap, but this play is clearly not a shift as the player does not become set after the motion. If he did, then the movement forward is of no consequence. A player moving forward without resetting is not a shift. Agree?

Guys, I guess I'm also "hung up on moving forward" in regards to this play. Although we may allow this motion, I believe the rules call it illegal motion based upon A's initial movement forward (even though this wasn't a false start or intended to deceive).

Please let me know if you find additional information to refute my opinion. Thanks.

JMN-

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

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.

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.

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.

Derock with a rulebook!?!?

These guys will turn you into a rule fanatic yet.

<i>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.</i>

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.

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]

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

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

<b>..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</b>

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?

Arena Football?
 

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.

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.

Look at the book with both eyes open, Derock...
 

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.

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

Re: Look at the book with both eyes open, Derock...
 

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.

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

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.

All I'm saying is players (A or B) has a right to maintain a position on the field. If a pass is thrown in a defenders direction, whether he attempts to catch it or not (or even know the ball is headed in his direction) he is entitled to maintain his position on the field. The receiver (or defender) cannot go through or plow him over in an attempt to move toward, catch or bat the pass.

I disagree, Not if that position hinders an opponent from moving toward, catching or batting the pass.

It's academic, though. Each play presents with so many variables, you go with your gut and better be ready to explain yourself.