QB goes in motion

[JRutledge]

Of course the QB can go in motion or shift, that is not the issue. A QB is technically a back and has all the rights of a back. My point was that I am not going to nitpick them being set if they are calling signals or directing their team when their feet or still and would allow some minor movement because they are about likely to receive the snap.

Peace

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Of course the QB can go in motion or shift, that is not the issue. A QB is technically a back and has all the rights of a back. My point was that I am not going to nitpick them being set if they are calling signals or directing their team when their feet or still and would allow some minor movement because they are about likely to receive the snap.

Peace

Quite irrelevant to the OP. This is a question about the provision in 7-2-7 that specifically permits the QB to go in motion without being 5 yards behind the NZ.

Being "technically a back" (is there any other way?) is equally irrelevant to this special provision.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Quite irrelevant to the OP. This is a question about the provision in 7-2-7 that specifically permits the QB to go in motion without being 5 yards behind the NZ.

Being "technically a back" (is there any other way?) is equally irrelevant to this special provision.

You totally missed the point of my post. People often try to hold the QB to a similar standard as other players for being set (meaning being totally still) when they are turning to their teammates and giving signals and split hairs if the QB is "set" or not. Actually this was an issue about a week ago in one of my games where a QB in my game would put their hands under the center and a teammate was in motion. I wanted to make clear that the reality is that this happens often and I would not go crazy if they are actually not completely still but use common sense that we expect a QB to look around or to move their hands to get ready to receive the snap.

Also there is no player definition of a Quarterback under definitions so I was making it clear they have the same rights as any back on the field. It sounded to me that he wanted to not allow them the same rights so "technically" they are a back by rule despite the football slang terminology that we use to describe a player.

Peace

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You totally missed the point of my post.

On the contrary, I understood your post thoroughly and completely. And that's how I know it was utterly irrelevant to the discussion in this thread.

Merely posting a true statement does not make you relevant.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mbyron

On the contrary, I understood your post thoroughly and completely. And that's how I know it was utterly irrelevant to the discussion in this thread.

Merely posting a true statement does not make you relevant.

Well I was not talking to you in the first place (funny how that happens like that) and if you might be thinking one thing, someone else might be thinking another. If the poster was not talking about that, he can clarify what he was trying to understand. That is what happens here and it really do not matter what you find relevant or not.

Peace

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well I was not talking to you in the first place (funny how that happens like that) and if you might be thinking one thing, someone else might be thinking another. If the poster was not talking about that, he can clarify what he was trying to understand. That is what happens here and it really do not matter what you find relevant or not.

You weren't talking to the OP either, since your comment was irrelevant. And if relevance is irrelevant, why have threads at all?

And: it happens here only because people post comments in threads that are irrelevant to the OP.

New and pertinent: that's the name of the game. So far, you've mastered only 50%.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mbyron

You weren't talking to the OP either, since your comment was irrelevant. And if relevance is irrelevant, why have threads at all?

And: it happens here only because people post comments in threads that are irrelevant to the OP.

New and pertinent: that's the name of the game. So far, you've mastered only 50%.

You are right, I have no idea what I was referring to or why I said what I did. Thank you for letting me know professor. I will keep that in mind the next time I comment on something. Once again, I was not talking to you so why do you really care?

Peace

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You totally missed the point of my post. People often try to hold the QB to a similar standard as other players for being set (meaning being totally still) when they are turning to their teammates and giving signals and split hairs if the QB is "set" or not. Actually this was an issue about a week ago in one of my games where a QB in my game would put their hands under the center and a teammate was in motion. I wanted to make clear that the reality is that this happens often and I would not go crazy if they are actually not completely still but use common sense that we expect a QB to look around or to move their hands to get ready to receive the snap.

This is why the pro rules don't call it a shift unless a player moves to a new set position by moving one or both feet. I don't know whether the NFL has the older rule in that regard and the other codes changed it, or vice versa.

[Suudy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Of course the QB can go in motion or shift, that is not the issue. A QB is technically a back and has all the rights of a back. My point was that I am not going to nitpick them being set if they are calling signals or directing their team when their feet or still and would allow some minor movement because they are about likely to receive the snap.

Typically we extend this courtesy to all players. If lineman are rotating on their hips and pointing or talking, we let that slide (if they have a hand down, they need to keep it there, but otherwise we let them rotate).